Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, look the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order).

Second Reading deferred until the second Sitting Day after 13th April.

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation Bill.

Bill committed.

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS.

Ordered,
That, if at any time the Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bills then referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111 the adoption of such a course is desirable, he may apportion the Bills between two Committees on Unopposed Bills, the composition and quorum of each being those prescribed by Standing Order 111 as modified by this Order, and each Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, and all the Standing Orders applying to the Committee on Unopposed Bills shall apply to each Committee:''

Ordered,
That the Chairman of Ways and Means have power to select from the panel appointed under Standing Order 111 one Member to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the

Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy-Chairman is present, and at any such meeting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members mentioned in Standing Order 111:

Ordered,
That during the present Session the Committee of Selection have power to add to the panel appointed under Standing Order 111."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

COMMITTEE ON OPPOSED BILLS CONTAINING LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES.

Ordered,
That in the case of an Opposed Bill promoted by a municipal or other local authority containing clauses by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary and other Local Government matters in conflict with deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall, when considering such clauses as aforesaid, have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker." —[ The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOBACCO AND CIGARETTE SUPPLIES.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in towns and villages in South Yorkshire, there is an acute shortage of cigarettes, whilst soldiers and airmen in the same area can usually obtain generous supplies from their canteens; and, in view of the information already sent to him, will he arrange for a more equitable distribution of supplies in favour of the civil population?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I am aware that the demand for tobacco and cigarettes exceeds the available supplies. I am not satisfied that the present distribution is the best that can be arranged, and I am taking special measures to try to ensure that each part of the country gets its fair share. I am satisfied, however, that the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers are not due to disproportionate supplies being allowed to Service canteens.
These supplies are now being limited, and nine-tenths of the manufacturers' production at the present time is being distributed through the normal channels.

Sir Richard Acland: Is the Minister aware that it is the other way round—that civilians can get cigarettes and the Services cannot?

Mr. Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to a scheme of registration and rationing of the general public, which retailers themselves have had to introduce, and would he not also consider transferring some of the surplus stocks from the London area to the Midlands and industrial North, particularly Yorkshire?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I am not prepared to consider a scheme of rationing until I am satisfied that other measures are unfruitful.

Colonel Arthur Evans: May I take it that my right hon. Friend does not propose to limit the supply of cigarettes to His Majesty's Forces serving overseas or to sailors serving in His Majesty's ships?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is quite another question. I am dealing only with supplies in this country.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister aware that in certain parts of Yorkshire one can occasionally get higher-priced cigarettes and tobacco, but that there is a great scarcity of the cheaper varieties?

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (REGULATIONS).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when a letter is submitted to the Trading with the Enemy Branch of the Treasury and Board of Trade for approval, with a view to transmission abroad, and such approval is not given, the reasons for non-approval will be given if requested?

Mr. Lyttelton: Approval is withheld only if transmission appears to be contrary to the public interest. I can give no assurance that the specific reasons for non-approval will in every case be given.

Mr. Purbrick: Is not the Minister aware that if senders of such letters are not informed of where their fault lies they

cannot remedy same nor prevent its recurrence?

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not generally the custom to give reasons for non-approval?

Mr. Lyttelton: It is customary, and normally it is so, but not always.

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade under what Section of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or Regulations thereunder, does an insurance policy taken out in England by a British national on property situated in enemy territory become compulsorily frustrated, since insurers are claiming that such frustration relieves them from refunding to the insuree any proportion of the annual premium paid corresponding to the period from the frustration of the termination of the policy; and does he intend to permit such action to continue?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know whether or not the Question deals with a policy in favour of a British subject resident in enemy territory. In any event the matter would be one of the application of the law to private contracts, with which I cannot deal. I would refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Lord Chancellor's Law Revision Committee (Cmd. 6009) in which the effect of the doctrine of frustration of a contract in English law is examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECQNOMIC WARFARE.

UNOCCUPIED FRANCE (IMPORTS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any information as to the number of ships arriving and leaving, and the tonnage of goods imported and exported from the port of Marseilles in December, 1940, and January, 1941, according to official French sources; and what proportion of the imports he estimates were requisitioned for German or Italian use?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): Figures purporting to be official show that, taking the two months of December and January together, about 450 vessels with a cargo of about 500,000 tons entered, and about 400 vessels with a cargo of about 136,000 tons left, Marseilles. Many of these vessels are small coastal craft and lighters, the average ton-


nage of each ship being only 1,200. A large number of reports from a variety of sources leave no doubt that the Germans take their pick of all incoming cargoes which interest them, while the Italians are permitted to take smaller pickings. Nearly all these reports indicate that more than half of such imports are taken by the Axis. Many reports put the proportion as high as 80 percent.

Mr. Parker: What are the principal commodities that enter enemy countries through this channel?

Mr. Dalton: The principal commodities reported are ground nuts, grain, fruit, early vegetables, fish, eggs, salted casings and skins, and minor quantities of copra, sugar, coffee, cocoa, wool, wine and spirits, mazout oil and pig lead.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is my hon. Friend taking appropriate steps to stop this sort of thing, even at the risk of annoying Admiral Darlan?

Mr. Dalton: I am constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in the matter, and he is being very helpful.

Sir William Davison: Has any explanation been given by Admiral Darlan or the Vichy authorities of the fact that they are transferring food supplies through Marseilles or elsewhere to Germany when they are begging for supplies of food to be sent by us?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Admiral Darlan has made a large number of statements. They all speak for themselves.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that French ships coming from the French Empire overseas are now allowed to pass unmolested through the Straits of Gibraltar, and is it not about time this was stopped?

Mr. Dalton: I informed the House the other day that a number of interceptions have in fact taken place of ships seeking to enter the Straits, and, as the House is aware, a certain incident connected with such operations was reported yesterday. It is not the case that ships are allowed to pass freely through the Straits. Some interceptions have been made in recent weeks and months.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in view of the fact that it has now been disclosed that the alleged gift of wheat by Germany to the Vichy Government was part of a barter arrangement, and that some of the goods which the Vichy Government are to supply to Germany under it are to be imported through Marseilles, he will reconsider his decision to permit two food-ships to pass our blockade to unoccupied France and give no such permission in future?

Mr. Dalton: The omission of the Vichy Government to disclose the facts about this barter deal, when complaining of our blockade, will not, I think, redound to their credit. His Majesty's Government are in communication with the United States Government regarding this affair. They do not feel able to withdraw the pledge given to the United States Government that the two ships already navicerted will be allowed safe passage, but, as I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, the agreement of His Majesty's Government to these two shipments of flour does not, of course, imply that under present conditions they would be prepared to issue navicerts for the import into France of other supplies.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to impress upon the United States Government the very strong feeling in this House against any direct feeding of the enemy?

Mr. Dalton: I think that in a democracy it is very healthy that the representatives of the people should speak so clearly.

RUSSIAN PURCHASES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any information as to the figures for the purchase in the United States of America by the Soviet Government in 1938 and 1940 of, respectively, copper, cotton, petroleum and machine tools; and what steps he is taking with regard to these purchases in view of the probable re-export of the commodities to Germany?

Mr. Dalton: According to the United States Government's official statistics, such exports from the U.S.A. to the U.S.S.R. were, in round figures:

—
1938.
1940.



Tons.
Tons.


Copper
50
49,400


Cotton
Nil.
31,500


Petroleum and Petroleum product
185,000
134,400


Metal working machinery
$ 35,000,000
$ 24,000,000

His Majesty's Government have been in frequent communication with the United States Government regarding this traffic. 1 may add that very little copper has been exported from the U.S.A. to the U.S.S.R. since the summer of 1940 and that there have been no exports of cotton from the U.S.A. to the U.S.S.R. in 1941.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

POTATOES.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue an order that all potatoes served to the troops should be cooked not peeled, thus avoiding waste and preserving the most nutritious part?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I am afraid that my hon. Friend's proposal would mean depriving the troops of an important element of variety in their menu. Steps are already taken, however, to avoid unnecessary waste in the peeling of potatoes. Potato machines which scrape without paring are installed in all large cookhouses, and instruction in scraping by hand is given at all Army schools of cookery and cookery training centres. The subject is also included in the curricula of all the messing officers' training centres.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that these things are done as widely as possible?

Mr. Granville: Does this mean that there will be no potato peels for the feeding of pigs?

NURSES (SUPERANNUATION).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have yet been concluded to safeguard the superannuation rights of nurses serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown?

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that voluntary hospital nurses who are called up for duty in His Majesty's nursing services have either to lose a substantial part of their pension benefits by reducing their contributions to the superannuation scheme or to cease the contributions and convert their policy into a paid-up assurance, or to pay contributions usually paid by their hospital as well as their own contributions; and whether, in view of the hardships imposed at present on nurses, he will arrange for the payment by the War Office of the employers' contributions?

captain margesson: I have given careful consideration to the position under the Federated Superannuation Scheme of nurses from voluntary hospitals called up as members of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service Reserve or the Territorial Army Nursing Service but I am afraid that it would not be practicable for the War Office to pay the employers' contribution towards superannuation benefits, which had previously been paid by the hospital. I am, however, reviewing the conditions of service in the nursing service, and I hope to be in a position to announce very shortly certain increases in pay which will help to meet the difficulty which my hon. Friends have in mind.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that these negotiations have been going on for over 18 months, can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when he will be in a position to give decisions on the review?

Captain Margesson: I think the matter is coming to a head now.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make with regard to new arrangements for strengthening the health and welfare of sick members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Captain Margesson: The facilities for the treatment of sick members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are comparable in all respects to those provided for soldiers, and I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As my hon. Friend is aware, an eminent woman doctor has been appointed to the Auxiliary Territorial Service Council to advise on all medical questions affecting the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

Miss Ward: I asked my right hon. and gallant Friend whether there were any new developments in regard to the health services. Can he say whether, as a Result of the appointment, there are any new proposals?

Captain Margesson: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to study the report which is to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, she will see what has been done.

Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the statement:

Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel who wish to report sick attend at the medical inspection room provided for the unit or detachment or nominated for use by the Auxiliary Territorial Service in any particular area, and can there receive out-patient treatment from the medical officer.

To meet the needs of those who require more than out-patient treatment, reception stations are provided for detachments of 300 and upwards and sick bays are opened at medical inspection rooms for smaller units. At reception stations, the medical officer, who may be a woman medical practitioner, has a staff including Voluntary Aid Detachment nursing members and members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, and may have a sister or staff nurse, if required. Auxiliary Territorial Service orderlies are authorised in sick bays where the strength of the detachment is over 40.

As regards hospital accommodation, a wing for Auxiliary Territorial Service patients has been established in a large military hospital near London,, and there are Auxiliary Territorial Service wards in over 20 of the larger military hospitals. In addition, military families hospitals are used for the Auxiliary Territorial Service, and all the hospitals of the Emergency Medical Service of the Ministry of Health are available for them.

So far as convalescent treatment is concerned, there is an Auxiliary Terri-

torial Service convalescent depot, and a Red Cross convalescent home is reserved for the use of women serving with the Forces. Courses of lectures in hygiene have been arranged as part of the training of officers and other ranks of the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that no action which will be financially or materially prejudicial to the present status of the Auxiliary Territorial Service will be countenanced; and that no action will be taken against civilians reporting on conditions in the service through Parliamentary channels?

Captain Margesson: As regards the first part of the Question, I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any particular proposal in mind, but she may be assured that the interests of the Auxiliary Territorial Service will continue to engage my Department's close and sympathetic attention. With regard to the second part of the Question, I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a misunderstanding which arose out of a long-standing decision to replace civilians by Royal Army Medical Corps women doctors, where available, on the panels formed to examine Auxiliary Territorial Service recruits. As my hon. Friend has since been informed, notice of the termination of their appointments was sent simultaneously to all the civilian members concerned, and there was therefore no question of discrimination against an individual.

Miss Ward: What were the difficulties with regard to the payment of civilian doctors referred to in the Under-Secretary's reply to my letter?

Captain Margesson: The decision to replace civilians by Royal Army Medical Corps personnel was taken partly because the method of payment of civilian doctors was unsatisfactory, and partly for the purpose of economising in medical personnel.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend tell me why the payment of civilian women doctors is unsatisfactory compared with the payment of male civilian doctors?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the Paper.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the troops at the unsatisfactory character of Army libraries, particularly at the way in which the best books are retained for the officers' libraries; whether any steps are projected for improving the provision of books for the troops in quality and quantity; and whether the services of trained librarians at present serving in the Army will be utilised for organising these libraries on the best possible lines?

Captain Margesson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. All units have recently been circularised with a view to ascertaining the types of books for which there is most demand, and there is no reason to suppose that the supply is not satisfactory either in quantity or quality. As regards the reference to officers' libraries, the hon. Member will appreciate that both officers and men have access to the unit library, and the same books are therefore available to all. Officers' mess libraries, where maintained at public expense, do not contain recreational books, but official publications and books of an instructional nature. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no doubt that commanding officers will be glad to avail themselves of offers of assistance in the organisation of unit libraries from trained librarians serving in their units.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that complaints in regard to the inadequacy of the libraries provided for the troops are being made not only by serving soldiers? Is it not very desirable that a public request should be made to all librarians to come forward and help?

Captain Margesson: No complaints of this nature have reached me.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the "best books" referred to include Sir Walter Citrine's report on Soviet Russia?

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that soldiers have very little access to books which state the nature of the cause for which we are fighting and the horrors of Nazi rule? Will he see to it that the libraries are ever stocked with books of that kind to keep up the morale of the troops?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War under what conditions officers of the Regular Army are granted honorary rank of a higher grade to their substantive rank on being placed on retired pay; and whether such conditions also apply on retirement to officers of the Regular or Territorial Army Reserve and those who have held emergency commissions provided they have held acting or temporary rank for an inclusive period exceeding six months as in the last war?

Captain Margesson: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of discussions which are at present proceeding with the other two Service Departments.

WAR OFFICE SCHOOL (LECTURER).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War how long Mr. Hugh Slater will remain a private in the Army before he is allowed to resume the duties for which his special abilities suit him as lecturer in the War Office school for the Home Guard?

Captain Margesson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that at this early stage in his training it is not possible to forecast Mr. Slater's future career in the Army.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not a fact that the minimum time required before a man can become an officer is five months, and, as this man has been employed full-time by the War Office as a lecturer to officers of the Home Guard, is it not a waste of his great abilities to allow him to go through the normal process when he could be doing so much better work?

Captain Margsesson: I do not think that any of that necessarily follows. His commanding officer has had his attention drawn to the qualifications of Mr. Slater, and, if he proves otherwise worthy of it, he will no doubt have an opportunity for training.

Sir R. Acland: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that that kind of answer will not do at all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the hon. Member because I thought he was going to ask a Supplementary Question.

Mr. Strauss: Would it not be better, where a man is already doing responsible work for the War Office, that he should


not become a private just because his military age has been reached, if his work was of real military value beforehand?

Captain Margesson: The Home Guard is not a reserved occupation, but it is always possible at a later stage to send Mr. Slater back to carry on his duties in the Home Guard.

Sir R. Acland: In view of this man's qualifications, it is absurd—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are large numbers of experienced officers of the International Brigade who are serving as privates in the Army?

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has again considered the position of the wives of members of the Armed Forces of the Crown from the standpoint of granting an immediate advance in the Government allowance of 18s. per week to a sum of 25s. per week to a wife, with corresponding advances to other dependants, so as to allow them a better standard of living than that enjoyed by them at the moment?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that I am unable to add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 21st January.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that the proficient soldier of to-day must be a skilled man, and that he has no trade union to state his case, and is not able to use economic power to give effect to his demands, and in view of the increased cost of living and general difficulties of their families to meet the needs of life, will the Minister request the Government again to review the case?

JEWS (RECRUITMENT ABROAD).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether facilities in addition to those which already exist can be offered for the recruitment of Jews abroad for active service in the British Army?

Captain Margesson: Consideration has been given to the possibility of offering further facilites for the recruitment of Jews abroad for active service in the British Army, but, in view of the present

pressure on our resources, especially in the matter of equipment, it is likely to be some time before effect could be given to any such scheme.

INVALIDINGS.

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men invalided out of the Army on medical grounds arising otherwise than from service within one year of their enlistment for any convenient period?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that it would not be in the national interest to disclose this information, since it might be of some value to the enemy.

Major Milner: As the matter is important and there is some dissatisfaction as to medical examinations, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me the information in confidence?

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware of the hardship caused by men being invalided out of the Army, sometimes when still in hospital, and hence having their pay stopped before a decision on entitlement to pension has been given, leaving them without resources; and whether he will arrange for pay and allowances to continue in issue until such a decision is given, when, if it be unfavourable, the soldier will usually be entitled to sickness benefit under National Health Insurance?

Captain Margesson: Under the arrangements governing the invaliding of soldiers in war-time, the discharge of an invalid now takes effect 28 days after the date of receipt of the approved medical board proceedings by the officer in charge of records concerned, who is responsible for confirming the discharge. The period of 28 days has been fixed, after consultation with the Ministry of Pensions, as giving the Ministry sufficient time to decide whether a non-effective award to the invalid is admissible, and, if it is, to put it into issue immediately after the date of the man's discharge. In the case of a man who is ineligible for a Ministry of Pensions award, the discharge machinery ensures the commencement of any National Health Insurance benefits to which he is entitled from the date following discharge. Should a decision regarding Ministry of Pensions award not have been reached by the date of discharge,


owing to some abnormal circumstance, National Health Insurance benefits are issuable from the date following discharge, the Ministry of Pensions award for the period of such issue being abated accordingly when put into effect. There should thus be no gap between the cessation of pay and allowances and the commencement of Ministry of Pensions award or National Health Insurance benefit as the case may be.

Major Milner: On what date was that Regulation brought into force? If it was brought into force recently, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that complaint still exists and that men are discharged while still in hospital and without resources? Is it not very unsatisfactory to fix a period of 28 days when circumstances vary so much?

Captain Margesson: I think the arrangement which has been made now will ensure that there is no gap between the cessation of pay and allowances and the beginning of pensions.

Sir H. Williams: Is the decision to be retrospective, in view of cases of hardship which have arisen?

MOTOR VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that military vehicles were involved in 526 out of 4,575 road accidents occurring in the West Riding since the outbreak of war up to a recent date; that there are serious complaints as to the driving of such vehicles in the area; and whether he will consider as an alternative to present methods the grant of certificates or other awards to drivers who are accident-free over a period as has been done under the aegis of the Safety First Council for civilian drivers with beneficial results?

Captain Margesson: As I have indicated on previous occasions, I have been giving serious consideration to the question of reducing the number of traffic accidents in which Army vehicles are involved. Strict instructions emphasising the responsibilities of War Department drivers and the penalties to which offenders are liable have recently been issued, and I would therefore prefer to see if these warnings result in any improvement before pursuing the adoption of a system of awards of certificates to accident-free drivers. But

I will certainly bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give full particulars of the constitution of the Board of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; the system of liaison with the Army; and whether commanding officers can communicate suggestions for improvement in the service through the usual channels to the Board?

Captain Margesson: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 19th March last, of which I am sending him a copy. Liaison with the Army is maintained by the presence of Service representatives on both the Council of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes and the Board of Management. In addition, both the new chairman of the Board of Management and the Army Council's representative on the Board have been provided with accommodation at the War Office in order to ensure close and constant liaison with the Quartermaster-General and the officers of his Department. The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Sir R. Acland: Is the Minister considering the possibility of making some arrangement whereby the private soldier can make the same sort of representations?

Captain Margesson: I should have thought that could have been arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information regarding the shooting of an officer named Dees, of the 6th Battalion, Durham Light Infantry, in Oflag VII C/H?

Captain Margesson: Inquiries made through the Protecting Power have established that Lieutenant Dees was shot by a sentry while standing at a window of his camp, and died immediately. The shots were fired as a result of a camp regulation forbidding prisoners to lean out


of the camp windows, with a view to preventing communication with the civil population. The Protecting Power have been requested to convey to the German Government on behalf of His Majesty's Government a most emphatic protest against the shooting of. Lieutenant Dees, and to press for the immediate cancellation of the order from which it arose, notifying the German Government at the same time that His Majesty's Government reserve all rights in respect of claims for monetary compensation on behalf of Lieutenant Dees' relatives. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my deepest sympathy with the relatives in their tragic loss.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as it is acknowledged that, in many cases, British prisoners of war in Germany are not given adequate clothing by the German Government, and since many next-of-kin in this country, some of them refugees from bombed areas, cannot afford to send the four clothing parcels per year, the British Red Cross will undertake the responsibility for dispatching to all our men in Germany, by July at latest, socks, cardigans and underwear, to reach the camps before next winter sets in; and what other steps does he contemplate to this end?

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War what provision has been made for the distribution of woollen comforts to prisoners of war whose next-of-kin are not in a position to send personal parcels or whose personal parcels have been lost or destroyed in transit; and whether immediate steps will be taken to send warm clothing to every prisoner of war for the coming winter, in view of the long time which must elapse before any such clothing reaches the various camps?

Captain Margesson: Large quantities of woollen clothing have already been sent to the International Red Cross Committee, both from this country and from various allied and neutral countries, for distribution to all British prisoners of war, irrespective of whether such articles have been sent by the next-of-kin. These include 189,938 pairs of socks, 106,108 sets of underclothing, and 62,392 pullovers. Consignments of replacement clothing will be despatched shortly, and arrangements

are now being made by the International Red Cross Committee to build up a reserve at Geneva, from which clothing can be despatched at once to any camp where it is required.

Sir A. Knox: Can we rely on arrangements being made whereby every prisoner of war will be provided with sufficient warm clothing, apart from what his relatives may be able to send him, before winter sets in?

Captain Margesson: That is why we are building up these reserves in Geneva.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that these reserves will reach the various camps before the winter? Will he bear in mind the terrible suffering of prisoners of war during last winter as a result of the delay in distribution in the camps?

Captain Margesson: I am doing my best to secure that end.

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, according to the latest information, medical officers detained in camp Stalag XXA, in spite of the Geneva Convention, are suffering from having only one blanket in a temperature of 20 degrees below zero; whether he will make representations to the German authorities, through the protecting Power, to provide extra blankets and also the necessary remedies for the destruction of the lice described as ubiquitous; and, in view of the fact that while there is a cobbler's shop there is no leather and it is necessary for these officers to have repairs done to their boots, he will endeavour to arrange that leather shall be provided?

Captain Margesson: Representations have been made to the German Government on both the points referred to in the first and second parts of the Question. As regards the last part, I am informed that there is a general shortage of leather in Germany and that in some cases wooden soles are being used as a substitute. 97,125 pairs of boots have, however, been sent to the International Red Cross Committee for distribution to British prisoners of war, and I understand that there has recently been a considerable improvement in the state of footwear in the camps. A further consignment of boots is at present on its way from this country.

Professor Savory: Has any protest been made against giving these officers only one blanket at a time when the temperature is 20 degrees below zero?

Captain Margesson: I have no information about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

COMMUNITY FEEDING.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the progress of canteens and communal feeding in industrial works and in industrial areas, respectively, in Scotland?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. The number of works canteens is being substantially increased, and firms have been urged to increase facilities at existing canteens. The Chief Inspector of Factories recently discussed in Glasgow the provision of further canteens for shipbuilding yards and steps are being taken to secure them where required. As regards facilities for obtaining meals outside the works, my Department bring to the notice of the Ministry of Food, where necessary, particular industrial areas in which additional facilities appear to be called for.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain Government industrial premises which are fitted and equipped with canteens, the canteens are not being used? Has that been brought to his notice?

Mr. Assheton: No, it has not been brought to my notice, but I will certainly look into any case the hon. Member can send me.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the recent experiences on Clydebank, will the hon. Gentleman speed up the provision of communal centres, especially in the industrial areas?

Mr. Assheton: That is a matter for the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain quarters employers in industrial premises are refusing to do anything in connection with canteens except in so far as they are compelled by Regulations? Will he do his best to bring

together employers and trade-union officials for the purpose of having these canteens equipped and brought into operation voluntarily, apart from Regulations?

Mr. Assheton: The information that we have from factory inspectors does not bear out the hon. and learned Member's suggestion.

Mr. Gibson: If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars, will he make inquiries?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some time ago his Chief came to Glasgow and promised speedy action in the matter, but that there is great complaint, particularly among working people, that little if any progress has been made in the provision of this much needed reform?

Mr. Assheton: We appreciate the need, and the progress has been substantial.

Mr. Lindsay: Is 'it the responsibility of the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Labour?

DEER FORESTS (SHEEP GRAZING).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep were carried by the deer forests of Scot land at the last available date before the war; and what is the corresponding figure for the last available date?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The numbers of sheep returned as grazing on deer forests in Scotland at 4th June, 1939, and 4th June, 1940, were 50,426 and 74,778, respectively.

Mr. Gibson: Is any arrangement being made whereby the number of sheep grazed in deer forests will be enumerated more than once a year?

Mr. Westwood: Yes; additional returns are now being taken as at 4th March, 4th September and 4th December, commencing with the return made on 4th December. That return was made after the summering stocks had been taken off and shows only the permanent stock in the forests. While there are no comparable figures for previous years the December, 1941, figures will enable this year's increase in permanent stock to be assessed.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with muirburning on the graz-


ing portions of the deer forests in Scotland; whether special steps are proposed to be taken; and, if so, by what date?

Mr. Westwood: No information is available as to the extent to which muirburning has been carried out on deer forests in Scotland this year. Proprietors have the right to make muirburn on their lands up to 30th April, or in the case of deer forests more than 1,500 feet above sea level up to 15th May. Tenants have the right under Defence Regulation to burn within the same periods subject to certain conditions. In addition, agricultural executive committees may issue compulsory directions in respect of muirburning when they think it necessary or expedient for the purpose of increasing or maintaining food production.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the fact that deer forests are now the main reservoir for the grazing of additional sheep, will my hon. Friend see to it that arrangements are made to push forward muirburning as quickly as possible during the remaining available weeks of the spring, and so make the earliest possible provision for the growth of young heather on which the sheep feed?

Mr. Westwood: I have no doubt that the agricultural executive committees are keeping a close watch on that.

LAMBING SEASON (DOGS).

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider making an Order for the duration of the lambing season, causing all persons out with dogs on lands where sheep graze, or on adjacent unfenced roads or lands, to hold their dogs securely on a lead, so that vital food production will not be impaired?

Mr. Westwood: My right hon. Friend has no power at present to make an Order of the kind suggested, and while he is not without sympathy for the object sought to be attained by my hon. Friend, the matter is not free from difficulty. My right hon. Friend will, however, consider my hon. Friend's suggestion in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

TURNIPS.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware

that thousands of tons of turnips have gone to waste in Dumfriesshire because the sheep that they were intended to feed have been immaturely slaughtered; and what does he propose to prevent a recurrence of this happening?

Mr. Westwood: If the hon. Member will be good enough to give my right hon. Friend more precise particulars of the locality in which the waste referred to in the Question is said to have occurred, he will have immediate inquiries made.

CATTLE (SLAUGHTERING).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle in Scotland at a time when new grass is appearing and that as a consequence farmers are left with grass and no cattle to consume it; and will he undertake to consult Scottish farmers with a view to eliminate this waste?

Mr. Westwood: My right hon. Friend has received no evidence whatever of indiscriminate slaughtering of cattle in Scotland, but if the hon. Member has any specific instance in mind, my right hon. Friend will be glad if he would supply me with particulars.

Mr. Sloan: Does my hon. Friend know anything at all about the agricultural interests in Scotland, since he seems to be seeking all the information from me?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ORGANISATION (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now indicate the result of the meeting in Glasgow, on 19th March, of the coalowners and the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers, for the adoption of a policy of 100 percent. organisation in Scotland?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): After discussing at length with the representatives of the Scottish colliery owners and of the National Union of Scottish Mine Workers the question of 100 percent. unionism in Scottish collieries, I have recommended to the parties the following solution, which they undertook to submit to their constituents:
For the period of hostilities the owners acknowledge the desirability of general membership of responsible trade


unions. They will give their sympathetic assistance and use all their influence to secure the individual membership of all men employed in and about the mines. The workmen, on their part, undertake to avoid all stoppages of work at the collieries on the general understanding that the trade unions recognised are the accredited unions in the Scottish coalfields and that no transfers be recognised unless they have been arranged with the consent of the organisations concerned.

SHETTLESTON CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the manager of Shettleston Co-operative Society, Limited, telephoned Mr. Alexander, of the Mines Department at Glasgow, complaining of the failure of his society to secure their proper supply of coal, informing him that the society had approached the hon. Member for the Shettleston division on the subject; that Mr. Alexander informed him that he could now depend upon the hon. Member for Shettleston for the coal supply, and refused to discuss the matter further; and whether he will inquire into Mr. Alexander's conduct with a view to his removal from this position?

Mr. Grenfell: I have made inquiries into this matter, without, however, any very satisfactory result, except to show conclusively that Mr. Alexander was not personally concerned, being away at a committee meeting on 18th March at the time that the telephone call is said to have been made. Such information as I have been able to obtain does not correspond with the account of the incident given by the hon. Member, and I see no need for further action over what at the worst was only a little telephone argument by an officer working under great strain to maintain coal supplies in difficult circumstances.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask whether there is still the right in this country for traders to approach Members of Parliament to try and get a redress of their grievances; has anybody in the Department in Glasgow the right to resent an application being made to a Member of Parliament, and should the Department not extend courtesy instead of resentment?

Mr. Grenfell: It is certainly my wish that Members of Parliament should make representations about any difficulties brought to their notice, and I do not think any official statement has been made on behalf of the Department in Glasgow that shows resentment at the part played by the hon. Member or anybody else.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman draw attention to the fact that this complaint has been made, and will he also inquire into whether the society can have their proper share of coal?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir.

PRICE (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that urban district councils which purchase electricity in bulk from large electricity undertakings are seriously concerned at the increasing price of coal to these bodies; and whether he can explain the reasons for the maximum price of coal rising from 17s. 10d. per ton in 1936 to 26s. 11d. in 1941, as the average cost of coal on which the Lancashire Electric Power Company base the price of its bulk supplies to the urban district councils in its area?

Mr. Grenfell: The price of coal to electricity undertakings has not been increased since the war to any greater extent than to other consumers. About half the increase in price referred to by my hon. Friend took place between 1936 and the outbreak of war. Increases since then have only taken place under the authority of my Department, and have been due to such causes as increases in miners' wages and in transport and other costs. The cost of coal to Lancashire electricity undertakings has also been increased to some extent by the necessity of obtaining additional supplies of coal from Northumberland. In any case the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend are, as he states, maximum prices and are somewhat higher than the corresponding averages.

Sir R. Young: Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something to secure that the local authorities get their coal from collieries nearer to them where the men are not fully employed?

Mr. Grenfell: That is a difficult matter to arrange. Everybody wants to have coal from the nearest colliery, but having regard to questions of quality and supply it is not quite as simple as that. Coal must be sent into Lancashire, which consumes more than half the coal it produces, and more than half its coal consumption must be taken from outside coalfields.

Sir R. Young: Is the increased price comparable to the increased price to retail consumers?

Mr. Grenfell: There are prices fixed, and they are fixed with the knowledge of all parties.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Does not my hon. Friend think that 17s. 10d. for coal in 1936 was far too low?

Mr. Grenfell: That is another side to the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (MARKETING).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps have been taken to implement the agreements made for the marketing of agricultural products by the so-called Sydney resolutions; and, if not, whether the Government will incorporate these proposals now as part of their long-term policy for agriculture?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the resolutions referred to were passed by a conference of British Commonwealth producers. This was in no sense an official gathering, and although the Government in a statement in the House on 13th July, 1938, expressed their benevolent interest the recommendations were addressed to Empire producers' organisations, by whom they were still being considered at the outbreak of war. Since then, of course, the regulation of food imports into the United Kingdom has been controlled by the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is quite impossible for the Government to forecast at the present time what particular measures will be most suitable for the regulation of agricultural imports after the war.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the then Minister of

Agriculture, now Postmaster-General, accepted these resolutions in principle in this House, and have the Government gone back on that? They were approved by all the Dominions, including Canada, and do not the Government think it worth while to take steps which will give confidence in a long-term policy?

Mr. Williams: The Government have not gone back on anything, but it would require the wisdom of Solomon to anticipate what the conditions will be after the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PROPERTY (GROUND RENT, BOMBED PREMISES).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications have been received from lessees of Crown property for a temporary reduction or waiver of ground rent in the case of bombed premises; and whether any relief has been given to such lessees?

Mr. T. Williams: In these ground-rent cases the Commissioners of Crown Lands have received 180 applications, 150 of which have already been dealt with. They have granted relief in 63 of the 150 cases, either in very special circumstances by temporarily reducing or cancelling the ground rent or by allowing arrears to be paid in monthly instalments when, as in most instances, there was merely a temporary cash difficulty in settling them fully at once.

Mr. Bellenger: Is this a temporary reduction for the period of the war, or only for a short period?

Mr. Williams: I assume that the reductions are strictly in accordance with the conditions in each case.

Mr. R. Gibson: From what proportion of the lessees have these applications been received?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

FIREMEN (COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the letter, dated 19th March, from the general secretary, Fire Brigades Union, regarding inadequate compensation for injuries to auxiliary firemen C. E. J. Palmer and


W. H. Garrett, of the London Fire Service, and to other firemen in similar circumstances; and whether he has any statement to make?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to (he Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Apart from a small sum which I understand was by inadvertence not paid in one of these cases but will now be paid, these two men received pay for the maximum period to which they were entitled under the improved injury pay conditions introduced last November. It would not, I regret, be possible to give retrospective effect to those conditions, as the Fire Brigades Union suggest in their letter, so as to cover all cases of incapacity arising from"war service injury" since the beginning of the war.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the considerable feeling that has been aroused among firemen about these cases, has any further attempt been made to meet the representations of the men to see whether an improvement can be effected?

Mr. Mabane: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the concessions were valuable ones, and that when improvements in conditions are made almost invariably anomalies and hardships arise. A date had to be determined and a date was determined, and I am afraid there can be no variation.

RESCUE AND DEMOLITION SQUADS (GLASGOW).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now satisfied that the rescue and demolition squads in Glasgow should be restored to their former strength?

Mr. Mabane: My right hon. Friend would require further evidence that an increase of the number of whole-time men at present authorised and maintained is needed. The city authorities have been urged over a period of several months to take steps to recruit part-time volunteers whose services would be available to supplement the whole-time men in case of need. As yet, however, no effective measures have been taken to this end.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such steps were taken and that the feeling is widespread in Glasgow that many of the 640 people who lost their

lives there might have been rescued had it not been for the reduction of the service by 500 of the personnel originally set up?

Mr. Mabane: I am not aware that any steps were taken to recruit part-time rescue parties. What can be done is to train first-aid parties in rescue work, which goes far to solve the difficulty.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister accept my assurance as a member of the local authority that steps were taken? If the steps failed, that is no answer. I want to ascertain whether the Minister is prepared to restore the strength authorised by the Home Department with paid full-time personnel in Glasgow.

Mr. Mabane: It is difficult to believe that Glasgow cannot recruit any part-time rescue party workers, in view of the results that have been achieved in many other parts of the country.

AIR RAIDS, CLYDESIDE.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the reason for the absence of mobile canteens when the Clvdeside air-raids took place on 13th and 14th March; is he aware that the military had to be appealed to in order to secure such canteens as they could spare; and will he take steps in order to provide such equipment for future use?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I have been asked to reply. The inquiries I have made do not indicate that there was any shortage of mobile canteens and the appeal for Military assistance, was, I understand, primarily for field kitchens to provide cooking facilities.

Mr. McGovern: If statements are made by people on the spot that there was a complete absence of mobile canteens and that they had to appeal to the military, who generously gave them assistance, does the hon. and gallant Member say that those statements are completely untrue?

Major Lloyd George: Oh no, but there is a difference between a mobile canteen and a field kitchen, and I think the hon. Member is not unnaturally confused between field kitchens and the mobile canteens which were in the area the day after the first raid. I think there were 17 on the first day and that the number rose to 40. Those were mobile canteens.

Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where those mobile canteens came from, if they were on the spot or had to come from outside?

Major Lloyd George: If we keep mobile canteens on the spot and an area is badly bombed they tend to become immobile. Those canteens came from, I think, Edinburgh, Dundee and other places outside the Clydeside area.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary his reason for issuing a statement on the Clydeside air-raids of 13th and 14th March in which the figure of 500 persons were stated to have been killed; and will he now give the latest figures of killed and injured, respectively, giving men, women and children separately, and number of houses destroyed or uninhabitable?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Ministry of Home Security issue each month particulars of air-raid casualties during the preceding month. It is often difficult after a severe raid to ascertain the casualties with accuracy, and for this reason monthly casualty figures are given which have been carefully checked by reference to the reports from Civil Defence sources, hospital returns, etc. These figures are as accurate and reliable as it is possible to make them. In view of the nature of the attacks in the Clyde area on the nights of 13th and 14th March, it was impossible in the early stages to obtain definite figures of the casualties incurred; and the first reports received indicated, as stated in the communiqu é s issued immediately afterwards, that though the attacks had been heavy the casualties, though serious, were not expected to be numerous. As soon as it appeared that the casualties were heavier than had at first been anticipated, a communiqu é was issued on 18th March giving the latest figures, as reported by the Scottish authorities.
The hon. Member will appreciate that in circumstances such as those in question any figures given soon after the raid cannot be final and complete. Since 18th March I am sorry to say that the numbers of killed and wounded have risen and now amount for the two nights combined to about 1,100 killed and 1,000 seriously injured for the series of municipal and county areas involved. In this

case I have departed from the usual practice not to give figures in relation to particular incidents. I have done so because I felt it important to correct any impression that the original announcements were deliberately designed to minimise the seriousness of the damage sustained. They did in fact represent the information available at the time. But I want to make it clear that this must not be regarded as a precedent. For reasons of public security I am not prepared to give statistics of the damage to dwelling houses.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the Question which asks for the numbers of men, women and children respectively?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not think we have that information in any case, and if we had, I should have to consider whether it is desirable to give it.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement of 500 as the number killed caused great resentment in the Clydeside area, many people knowing there were many more killed; and does he not think it better, if a figure is to be stated, that it should be nearer the facts, and so prevent the spreading of statements which put the number of killed at 5,000 or 6,000? Surely it is better to have no figure or the real figure.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that the hon. Member can be familiar with what conditions are in our Civil Defence organisation in the middle of a "Blitz" itself. There are very great difficulties to meet, and really more important things to be done at that moment. I am only concerned with the figures. We gave them fairly on the information which was supplied to us by the local authorities, and I want to assure the House that we act genuinely in these matters, and should strongly resent any suggestion that there was any bad faith on our part.

Mr. Buchanan: Why give a figure at all?

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that there would have been no resentment and no feeling if no figure had been issued till a later date? Can he tell us who is responsible locally for collecting these figures and for making such a statement?

Mr. Morrison: As to the statement, the responsibility is mine. The collection of the figures is a responsibility of the local authorities, passing up to the Minister of Home Security. If there have been statements giving figures by municipal representatives locally, they have done wrong. They have no right to give any figures whatever. The only reason why figures have been given in this exceptional cast-is that the original figure was misleading by indicating that the casualties were lighter than they were. That was resented on Clydeside, and I thought it only fair that some further figures should be given; but this is entirely an exceptional case and I hope that it will not be regarded as a precedent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMPS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been directed to the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure; and, in view of the fact that this Report goes to prove that the sort of allegations made by Major H. H. Evans (late Royal Engineers), Major A. ReidKellett, D.S.O., M.C., and Mr. W. H. E. Carr, A.M.I.C.E., are again substantiated, what further action does he propose to take;
(2) whether he will move the House to order the documentary evidence, on which the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure was based, to be sent to the judge of the High Court appointed to decide whether there are any prima facie cases of waste, extravagance and dishonesty in the carrying out of Government contracts?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the criticisms and recommendations of the Select Committee do not support the contentions of my hon. Friend, and I am not prepared to adopt the course of action he suggests. I may add that the Minister of Works and Buildings is now considering the Report in detail, with a view to taking the necessary steps, wherever practical, to give effect to the Committee's recommendations, some of which have already been adopted, and the Minister's observations on the Report generally will in due course be submitted to the Select Committee.

Sir W. Smithers: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will take his well-known courage in both hands and order a full-blooded judicial inquiry without delay, so that all these questions can be settled and punishment inflicted on the guilty parties? What is the reason for the delay?

The Prime Minister: A full statement has been made to the House as to the procedure which the Government propose to adopt, and it certainly is not calculated to shield anyone from the consequences of criminal action or misdemeanour.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great injustice done to the three persons named in the Question, and may I ask whether he proposes to take any action to see that it is put right?

Oral Answers to Questions — INVASION (LEAFLETS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement to this House, as well as circulating in pamphlet form, the advice to civilians in case of invasion?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it necessary at the present stage to add to the advice given in the leaflet, copies of which will be made available to hon. Members in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE AIMS (LORD HALIFAX'S SPEECH).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of publishing, as a White Paper, the speech on war and peace aims, made at New York recently by His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America?

The Prime Minister: Lord Lothian's last speech was published as a White Paper, and I propose to follow that precedent in this case. However, this must not be taken to indicate a general practice.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether, in making this most admirable statement, Lord Halifax was speaking on behalf of the Allies as a whole in addition to the British Government?

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect his recent aphorism,


that in a statement of peace aims when you descend from the. realm of pious platitudes you reach the realm of heated controversy, and may I ask how his Noble Friend managed to suspend himself between those two zones?

The Prime Minister: Not every remark which is used in political discussion is necessarily of universal application.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech recently made by His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America in which Lord Halifax purported to define this country's peace aims; and whether he will consider whether the time has now arrived when these peace aims should be formally stated by the Government in general terms, and an opportunity given to the House of Commons to consider them?

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement on war aims made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington at New York is to be regarded as offcially expressing the views of His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington consulted me about the admirable speech which he made in New York on 25th March, which is in full accord with the general outlook of His Majesty's Government. But Lord Halifax said in his speech that it was not possible now to draw detailed plans for the future structure of the community of nations, and I myself have recently had occasion to say that it was not my intention to produce at the present time a catalogue of war aims and peace aims.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that no one concerned in this matter has ever asked for details; and does he not agree that the people of this country who, after all, are bearing the brunt of the conflict, are just as much entitled to be consulted and informed on the subject as are the people of the United States of America?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter?

The Prime Minister: I propose to make a statement on the war situation on the day the House adjourns for Easter. Instead of the usual statement on the Motion for the Adjournment, it is my intention, which will, I am sure, meet with the approval of the House, to begin by moving a Resolution expressing the congratulations and thanks of this House to the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force for the succession of brilliant victories achieved by His Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. I will take the opportunity, when moving this Resolution, of making my statement to the House on the general situation. It may be that parallel action will be taken in another place. The procedure is being looked into.

Mr. Buchanan: What will be the position if the whole of the Adjournment Debate is taken up with the matters contained in the statement to be made by the right hon. Gentleman? Has it not been the practice for many years for private Members to look forward to this Debate as one of the days they have for raising matters in which they are particularly interested? If the whole day is to be taken up with discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may not Members who have particular grievances be debarred from presenting them?

The Prime Minister: I do not think discussion of the statement will take the whole day, and that is why I used the expression "to begin by." I do not think my statement will be controversial at all, or that it will interfere with the normal and indispensable Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that we have not had a general Debate on the war situation since 4th December?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, look the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for calling up men for civil defence and to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the first-mentioned Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.— (Liability to be called up for civil defence.)

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Crown" to the end of line 12.

The Deputy-Chairman: Before the hon. Member addresses the Committee, I would point out that the next two Amendments on the Paper— in page 1,line 12, at the end, to insert:
where the condition imposed by the tribunal on such person was that he should engage in work of civil defence,
and, at the end, to insert:
and has accepted a condition to undertake work of civil defence,
as well as the last two Amendments to this Clause—in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:
( ) if any person liable to be enrolled for service under this Act claims that he conscientiously objects to undertake such service he shall be entitled to apply to have his claim considered by the local tribunal constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the principal Act, which tribunal shall have power to make an order granting him exemption from such service.
An applicant who is aggrieved by the failure of a local tribunal to make such an order may appeal to the appellate tribunal constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the principal Act and the decision of the appellate tribunal shall be final.
and in line 25, at the end, to insert:
( ) if any conditionally registered conscientious objector notifies the Minister in the manner prescribed by the Minister that he desires to be allowed to continue to undertake the work specified by the tribunal as a con-

dition of his registration, the Minister may suspend his liability to be called up for civil defence, and may also refer the application to the appellate tribunal which may recommend that the condition of registration should continue in force or that it should be varied.
can well be discussed together on this first Amendment, if the Committee agrees.

Mr. Maxton: The object of the Amendment which I am moving is that the Bill should not have a retrospective effect on persons already called up under the principal Act and who are either gone into the Armed Forces or, after appearing before tribunals, have been exempted on various conditions or absolutely. If the Amendment is accepted, the Bill will apply to all men now coming forward to be enrolled in the Armed Forces and will mean that all men called up will be put either into the Armed Forces or into some branch of Civil Defence; but all those who have come up previously and have been dealt with will not have their position reviewed, and will be left where they are. Some of them may be in the Civil Defence forces, some in their ordinary occupations, doing spare-time Civil Defence work, while others may have been removed to agriculture.
All these men have had their cases fully reviewed by local tribunals set up under the principal Act, and some will have appeared before appellate tribunals. They are now fixed in positions of one sort or another, adjudged, under the principal Act, as the appropriate ones for them. If we read the Bill aright, it means that the position of every person will come again under review, and that all the work that has been done by local and appellate tribunals will be wiped out. Men may have been exempted from military service by their tribunals on condition that they carried on their own work, which might be some kind of clerical work, or on condition that they did first-aid, fire-fighting or fire-watching in their spare time. Those men will again be liable under the Bill to be compelled to come up again, and perhaps to go into some full-time branch of Civil Defence. We think that is unfair, and that all the past decisions should stand as they are and as they were decided under the principal Act.
In view of your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, that several other Amendments are covered by the Amendment which I


am moving, I would make some reference now to the specific points in those other Amendments. The next Amendment on the Paper seeks to deal with the case in which the condition imposed by the tribunal was that the person concerned should engage in work of Civil Defence. We agree that if a tribunal has said that an appellant is entitled to exemption from military service on condition that he does Civil Defence work, and if the appellant has accepted Civil Defence work under the principal Act, he can have no objection to having it imposed upon him again by this Measure. But a man who has got exemption on condition that he does agricultural work or something of that sort is in a different position. We feel that, now, he ought not to have the old condition given to him by the tribunal taken away from him and this other condition substituted.

Mr. Silkin: What would the hon. Member say about the case of the man who is asked to do ambulance or first-aid work?

Mr. Maxton: I would include ambulance work in Civil Defence, and I would say that in a case of exemption on the condition that a man did ambulance work in a voluntary unit, then he ought not to be taken out of a voluntary unit like the Friends' Ambulance Unit, for instance, and put into something else that he would have regarded as part of the general State mechanism. I submit that that would be interfering with the definite intention of the tribunal which dealt with his case originally. The third Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends is similar in effect. It also deals with the case of the man who, having had the Civil Defence condition imposed on him by the tribunal, has accepted that condition to serve in Civil Defence. But, we ask that this Measure shall not be applied to those who, having had the Civil Defence option given to them by the tribunal, have refused it and have gone to prison for refusing it, and may have done periods of imprisonment of six months or more. Are we, by this Measure, to say to such persons: "The local tribunal give you the Civil Defence option; you refused it, and you have been punished for refusing it, but this Act will compel you, in spite of all the various

assizes which you have had to confront and the various penalties you have had to undergo." On those grounds, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. McGovern: I wish to support the Amendment. At this stage we would welcome a statement from the Minister on whether or not all these classes of individuals to whom reference has been made are embraced in this Bill. I would ask: Is it fair that men who have been before these various tribunals, and some of whom have accepted the conditions laid down and honestly carried them out, while others could not, according to their beliefs and principles, accept such conditions, should again be made victims under this new Measure? The tribunals themselves, unaware that it was proposed to introduce legislation of this kind, have in most cases imposed some condition. Therefore, I take it—and I shall be glad if I am wrong —that all those people are involved in the Bill.
I have had experience of some 12 or 15 cases before the tribunals. In one case the tribunal has said to the individual, "We will grant you exemption for the period of the emergency, on condition that you remain at your present occupation as a shipping-clerk," or in another case, "We grant you exemption on condition that you remain in your present occupation in the electricity industry. "There are other cases of that description. Are those people who have been before both local and appellate tribunals and have been granted conditional exemption, in cases in which they have not been transferred from their present occupations to new occupations, to be called up now for further national defence work? Does this Bill entitle the Minister to do so? In the other cases of men who have been transferred to other occupations, a considerable number have been transferred to such work as agriculture, forestry, land drainage and land reclamation. Some have had conditions imposed for a brief period only, in regard either to fire-watching or fire-fighting. Some have had imposed upon them the condition that they drive ambulances during the period of emergency. Are we to take it that all those individuals can be and are likely to be called up by the Minister under this Bill?
Again, there is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend that many of these individuals have already gone through two periods of imprisonment and the State has not yet recognised their real conscientious objection. The men are doing their best by the sacrifices which they are making to impress on the Ministry and the country the fact that they are genuine objectors, although they have been turned down by the tribunals. Are these men, having done periods of imprisonment, first for failing to present themselves for medical examination and afterwards for refusing to accept the conditions laid down by the tribunal, to be called up under this Measure and exposed to further trials and imprisonments? If that is to be the case, I cannot imagine persecution going further. I hope I am wrong in my assumption—there are some things about which one is glad to find one's self wrong. But if what I have indicated is to be the position, I think it is a horrible thing that we should enact a Measure of this description and, in order that we may have a complete clearing-up of the situation in this respect, I support the Amendment.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): This Amendment raises the fundamental principle of the Bill. I put this to the Committee as a question which has to be answered: Is Civil Defence a civilian occupation? Hon. Members by these Amendments are asking the Committee to put something into the Bill which would, in effect, convert Civil Defence, in principle, into something of a military character. We cannot accept these Amendments, nor can we be influenced by harrowing imaginations of a cruel administration. There is no evidence on which to base the claim that in the carrying out of the principal Act there has been any administration of that character in connection with the calling-up of people. Great care has been used. The short answer to these Amendments, however, is that everybody in the country is being made liable for Civil Defence, and that applies whatever may be a person's position in regard to the matters which have been raised. Therefore, the Committee must determine whether they are prepared to accept the principle that there can be conscientious objection to a civil occupation. What the tribunals have dealt with up to now is not conscientious

objection to State mechanism, which was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton). To say that you can have a conscientious objection to the operation of State mechanism would resolve itself into turning the whole of the State into a state of anarchy. What you have been given exemption for is an objection to military service, and this Bill does not alter that.
All that the Bill does is to make compulsory the obligation to one form of civil occupation. Indeed, in principle it is no different from the essential work Orders, because the essential work Orders and the powers which the House imposed upon me as Minister of Labour, almost before I came here—before I was an actual Member of the House—say that I should exercise power to direct people. That is being carried out. I can only direct people to a civil occupation; I could not direct them to a military duty. On the Second Reading of the Bill I made it quite clear that we would not impose upon a conscientious objector an obligation to go into the Police War Reserve, because the Police War Reserve have sometimes to carry arms, and so we took it right up to the very point where the taking of life was involved. Even in regard to the Police War Reserve, of whose duties 99 percent. are civil, we would not impose that obligation upon a conscientious objector in view of the other one per cent. My answer is that this point raises the principle of whether Civil Defence is to be regarded as a civil occupation, and, in view of the fact that it is a civil occupation, I must ask for the rejection of the Amendment.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the Minister has been perfectly logical in his attitude, but unfortunately human life is not governed entirely by logic, and, although he has made it perfectly clear that in his view and, I think, in the view of the Committee, Civil Defence is an entirely different thing from military service, yet there is no doubt that in the minds of a number of sincere men who will come under this Bill when it becomes an Act Civil Defence is so closely associated with military service that their conscientious objection is involved. We may regret that attitude, and we may think that it is entirely wrong. We may not understand it, but it is there. It is a fact. If the


Bill goes through in its present form, without any recognition of that fact, undoubtedly there will be a great number of cases in which the Minister, to his regret, will find that men are coming under the process of the law although they are now rendering good service to the country and want to continue to render that good service, and will, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves unable to comply with the demands of this Bill when it becomes an Act because the civil service to which they are called up is, in their minds, so closely associated with military service. I am not maintaining that that view is correct, but it is a sincere view, and should therefore be respected so far as it is possible. Surely it is in the national interest that men who are doing useful work, and work which has been assigned to them by the tribunals because of its importance and its value, should be allowed to continue in that work without being subjected to all the process which is contemplated in this Bill. It will cause friction and a real sense of injustice, not only in the minds of these men, but in the minds of many others who recognise that these men are sincere.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot accept this Amendment, to accept one of the other Amendments which appear on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment or in the names of other Members, or to reconsider the matter and deal with it in an appropriate way. It is not an imaginary position that I am putting before the Committee. This morning I received a letter on behalf of a sincere body of men whose views I do not share, the Christadelphians. The committee informed me that they had placed before the Minister of Labour their position, that numbers of them have accepted agricultural work and others similar work, giving up their occupations in obedience to the injunctions of the tribunals, but that they have all along made it clear that they could not undertake specifically Civil Defence; and, therefore, if this Bill passes, they will have no alternative but to submit to the penalties of the law. We may not agree with these men in any way, but we can recognise their sincerity and also the fact that they are undertaking service of value.
There is another point which I hope the Minister will consider. This Bill does

not impose any obligation upon those conscientious objectors who have received unconditional exemption from the tribunals. Men whose viewpoint is exactly similar to that of these men have received from the tribunals exemption conditional upon continuing in the occupation in which they were already engaged and which was recognised as of national importance. It was a mere accident, dependent upon which tribunal they went before, whether they received conditional or unconditional exemption. The Minister proposes to impose no new obligation on all those who have received unconditional exemption. They remain outside the scope of the Bill. But men who take the identical viewpoint of these men, who are in every way comparable but who happen to have received conditional exemption, will be placed in a position in which they feel that the condition which was given to them by the tribunal has been, so to speak, filched away from them, that they have had no opportunity of appeal or of putting their point of view before any other tribunal, and that they are left to face the penalties of the law. I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider this point, and will find it in his power to make some provision by means of which all those who are called up from their positions under conditional exemption shall have some opportunity of placing their case before either the appeal tribunal or some other tribunal. I believe that if we can do that, the Bill will work in every way more smoothly and that a great sense of injustice will be removed.

Mr. Bevin: If I may, I would like to make one correction. The Christadelphians have been mentioned, but in the letter which I received I understood that the only objection they raised was to the Police War Reserve. In that they have been met.

Mr. G. Strauss: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question which has been asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) but which I do not think he answered quite clearly, or, if he did, I did not properly appreciate the answer. What is the position under this Bill of those conscientious objectors who have already been before the tribunals and "have been granted exemption on condition


that they do some special work, such as that they become agricultural workers or carry on in their own occupations? There is a very large number who come in that category. Will they be re-examined, will they have to go before the tribunals again, and possibly be asked to give up their work on the land or their own present occupation in order to take up some other work? It is important that we should know. I think it would be very unfortunate if there were to be a further examinaation of and allocation of work to those who have already passed before the tribunals. Perhaps that is not the intention of the Government, but I think we ought to know what the Government have in view in regard to this matter.

Mr. Maxton: I also should like to have a proper clarification of this point. I did not find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Probably the difficulty in answering the question was that I did not properly formulate it. I must admit that I was just a little taken aback by having my first Amendment called as the governing Amendment, because I agree with what the Minister said and with what the hon. Gentleman behind me has said, namely, that if this first Amendment was carried, it would render a large proportion of the Bill completely ineffective. That was not really my intention, and, like the hon. Gentleman behind me, I should be satisfied if I could obtain from the Minister some clarifying Clause or limiting Amendment, which would not be so sweeping as the Amendment I have just moved, to the effect that the past cases already decided should not again come under review, and that under the operation of this Bill people should not be moved from useful work which has been approved, even though it is not strictly connected with Civil Defence. Agriculture, for instance, has been referred to, and there may be other things which do not jump to the mind immediately.
It is a big change to take a man who has been given exemption on condition that he does agricultural work, or that he works in a Friends' ambulance unit, right into the middle of the recognised A.R.P. services under orders and controls whereby he has lost command of his own acts. A large proportion of the people who have been conscientious objectors and for whom I can speak most

directly have not the faintest objection to doing the things involved in Civil Defence. I have spoken to many, members of such bodies as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Plymouth Brethren, whose point of view I do not share and on whose philosophy I cannot get a grip, but I recognise that when a man says, "I am not taking my orders from Ernest Bevin; I am taking them from Almighty God, and from Him only, and I will go through purgatory before I obey Ernest Bevin in place of God," he is standing on a principle, and if he is prepared to stand on it, it must be accepted. It is not anarchy, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am surprised at his talking about anarchy. If a worker says he is not going to do so-and-so in spite of what all the bosses and what all the Governments in the world tell him, that is not anarchy. I have heard some great speeches of that kind. Ajax defying the lightning was nothing to what the dockers K.C. would defy, and we did not regard that as anarchy.
To stand on a principle you believe to be right in spite of anything that others may do is not anarchy. If a majority of the population of the country took that view, there might be a temporary state of chaos, admittedly, but when that temporary state of chaos had been passed, my view would be that we should move into a very much better social order than ever we have had before. But it is not fair to suggest that a minority of men, who hold fundamentally a point of view which is different from that of the majority, and who are prepared to stand alone and take what is coming to them—they are conscientious objectors in the proper sense of the word who have already been through the machinery set up by Parliament and have been granted certain rights by it under the operation of an Act passed by this House, should now be told by the new Minister that they have to go through it again. The new Labour Minister should not be able to say that he is not satisfied with what the stick-in-the-mud Liberal Minister did and that he is going to wipe out all the concessions granted in the old days to conscientious objectors, who are now going to be reviewed all over again and compelled to go just as far as the State says they have to go, whatever their personal views may be.
I want the Minister to tell me this: Is it his intention that all the cases that have already been dealt with shall be reviewed again? Is he going to start a complete review of all the cases that have already been gone over? Is he going to include in such a proceeding those who have received absolute exemption, because the view of one tribunal may be entirely different from that of another, particularly when they have now not merely military service to consider but Civil Defence service also? I want the Minister to tell us whether all the cases that have been dealt with and settled are to be reviewed, and whether the whole question has to be churned up again? Secondly, I want to know whether, when these cases are reviewed, the tribunals will still be able to do as they have been able to do in the past 12 months, namely, to send a man into some voluntary or semi-religious organisation other than the organised Civil Defence forces so long as the work they are doing is a part of the work of Civil Defence? Doing such work under different auspices makes a difference to a certain number of these people. It makes a difference to their attitude, and I should like to know whether the tribunals will still have the same rights or whether they will be limited, in their dealings with conscientious objectors, to a choice between granting absolute exemption or exemption conditional on entering Civil Defence work?
I admit that this Amendment cuts right at the root of the Bill—Iam going to vote for it for that reason, but I recognise that the Minister could hardly accept it. I would ask him, however, to consider the point put by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), and to say whether he is prepared to consider, between now and the Report stage, some Amendments which will define more clearly the rights of conscientious objectors who have been dealt with in the past and who will come up in the future.

Mr. Silverman: Let me admit that I think the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly accept this Amendment: it cuts away the whole principle of the Bill; and, unlike the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I could not vote for the Amendment for that reason. I do not think that even the

absolutists of the last war ever said that there was nothing they would do to share in the suffering and striving of the nation. What they then said was, ''We claim the right of exemption from military service. We are not going to bargain with the thing, to compound a felony, by accepting conditional exemption; but if you give us absolute exemption, if you recognise our absolute right not to be compelled to perform military service, without imposing any condition, there are many things that we would do." The things that they would have done are very largely the things that they would be called upon to do under this Measure. Therefore, I do not feel justified in opposing the Government on this Bill. This is not a condition imposed in order to win exemption from other service. It merely imposes a civil obligation upon civilians to do civilian work.
I think the right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, with respect, is perfectly right to reject this Amendment; but there remains the difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) pointed out. We have a series of tribunals, which have had imposed upon them by Statute the 'obligation of investigating what it would be right for individuals to do. These tribunals come to decisions which involve an exact analysis of the state of mind of the individuals coming before them. So the relation of the individual to the State is established by the machinery which the Military Service Act contemplated. What useful purpose would be served now by pretending that that had not been done and starting all over again? While the right hon. Gentleman could not accept this Amendment, is there no form of words that he could accept; or is there no undertaking which he could give that, administratively at any rate, these people whose rights have been determined will not be further disturbed?

Mr. Bevin: May I help my hon. Friend? If we put these people into a privileged position, what am I to say to every other citizen in a non-essential occupation whom I have to transfer under the other Orders?

Mr. Silverman: It is not suggested that they should enjoy any privilege which the State has not already conferred upon


them. This is not a new privilege that is being sought.

Mr. Bevin: I suggest that it is.

Mr. Silverman: I suggest not. I may be wrong, but I think others will take the same view as I am taking. It is not claimed that there should be some addition to the privileges these people have. The State has put them in this position by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Maxton: A Tory Government's Act.

Mr. Silverman: It does not matter what kind of Government, or what kind of individual, was originally responsible. Let us not have that sort of thing. There is an Act of Parliament which confers privileges on certain persons. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we are now attempting to increase those privileges. I am trying to persuade him that that is not so. Under that Statute, the State said to those individuals, "If you can establish, to the satisfaction of a tribunal which we will set up, that there is no service that you can conscientiously render to the State at this time, you shall not be expected to render service. If, on the other hand, you establish, to the satisfaction of the tribunal, that, although you cannot render military service, there is some other service which you can conscientiously render to the State, you shall render that service. "That is really the same question as we are asking to be considered now. If we so recognise the position of the individual, and accept the decisions of the tribunals appointed by the Government for that purpose, I do not think that what is now suggested involves any addition to the privileges already enjoyed. You may say that this is a new Bill and a new kind of service. Formally, there may be, in that sense, something in that view, but in essence the thing is exactly the same; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to refuse to meet the point which has been raised in this Debate.

Mr. Messer: I agree with what has been said about the Amendment itself, that if it were carried it would strike at the heart of the Bill. But I submit that the Minister's attitude is a departure from the guarantee which was given when the original Bill was

passed. It will be remembered that the Secretary of State for War at that time got that Bill through the House by giving certain undertakings. Many of those undertakings concerned conscientious objectors and conditional objection. I have never been able to understand how one's conscience is affected by a condition being applied. If you object to a thing conscientiously, then, to me, the conscience is not affected by the opportunity of taking part in certain aspects of that thing. You either agree with the thing or you do not. I remember that the then Secretary of State for War, in one case, was good enough to accept the principle of an Amendment which I moved; and it was because of that agreement that that Bill went through. Is it not possible that people who have already been dealt with under that Act should be disregarded in this Bill?
Statements have been made with regard to the administration of tribunals. I have been to one or two, and I have to repeat now what I said on the original Bill. It seems to me to be a complete impossibility to find out people's consciences. All that you can do at most is to examine the evidence as to their sincerity, and even that evidence may not be conclusive. When a conscientious objector has been before a tribunal, and it has been shown that he has every desire to render some service to the community, and the examination has shown in what direction he can best serve the community, the tribunal therefore take advantage of their power under the enactment and say, "We will exempt you from military service on condition that you do this particular work. "There are, for instance, land work, afforestation and other forms of civil employment which cannot be confused or said to be part of the military machine, where the conscientious objector can feel that by giving an undertaking to take part in the work he is not surrendering his principles. But if anybody who has been before a tribunal and has as a consequence accepted a condition is now to be called up and put into certain services which might outrage his conscience, he is not being given any right now to come before a tribunal, but must go and do the work that is demanded of him.
I want to make my personal position plain. I cannot understand for a moment


how anybody possessed of a spark of humanity can refuse service to a stricken neighbour. You can call it Civil Defence, but when a man, woman or child is injured it does not matter whether it is the result of enemy action or anything else; it is the duty of all people to render what service they can. For a man or woman to take a stand on a supposed conscience and to refuse to render such aid is the possessing of a type of mind that I cannot understand. But it does not alter the facts. There are those whose environment has produced such an influence on their minds that one wonders sometimes whether they are entirely sane, but they hold their point of view with firmness. Such people, when it has been shown in the examination that has taken place before a tribunal that they cannot conscientiously do certain things, should not now be called upon to do them. I hope that the Minister will see the view of those who want to see the best done by the nation. I hold the view that if, as it has been termed, this is conscription for Civil Defence, I do not mind conscription if it is to include everybody. If all are made to render what services they are capable of doing in the interests of the nation, that will be all to the good, but in this instance we should see whether it is not possible to have some regard to the honour of this House. The original Act was passed as a result of guarantees given, and those who have already been through the tribunals should not be called upon again to undergo what has already been decided.

Mr. Silkin: I am rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Member that his Amendment goes to the root of the Bill. I do not think it does. I think that my right hon. Friend can accept the Amendment without its very much affecting the Bill at all. The Bill is mainly for the purpose of enabling future classes of men to be called up for Civil Defence instead of for military service. The relatively few conscientious objectors really claim no great part in the matter at all. If he were so minded to accept the Amendment, I do not think that he need worry about the effect on the Bill. But I want to put the position from a business and practical point of view and to ask him whether, if he is really concerned for Civil Defence, he will gain very much by worrying about conscientious objectors. In the first place,

they are already presumably doing work of national importance, and they have been exempted on condition that they do such work. If you take them away from national service and put them into Civil Defence, then national service will lose, and you will have to find somebody else to do the work that they are doing. My right hon. Friend is aware that many local authorities have refused to accept conscientious objectors for Civil Defence. But now these men will be forced upon them. I wonder how it will work, and how many of the men who are already doing full-time Civil Defence will work with conscientious objectors who are to be imposed upon them. Team work is very important indeed in Civil Defence. You put men together on fire fighting or on rescue work. Some are volunteers and are doing the work gladly and freely, and others have been brought into this work. I would not like to be answerable for the results, but, speaking from the point of view of the local authorities which hitherto have not been willing to have conscientious objectors, I should feel that they will not welcome these men in their service.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter very carefully indeed. Cannot he give the House an assurance that where a conscientious objector is doing a job of national importance, and doing it well and to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, he will not be uprooted and forced to do something else which he does not want to do, which the local authority do not want him to do, and which will not result in any advantage to the community? If my right hon. Friend can give the assurance that he will leave well alone and leave the man alone if he is doing his job well, I think the Committee will be satisfied, and I imagine that in those circumstances my hon. Friend might withdraw the Amendment. I think that my right hon. Friend ought to give at least that assurance to the Committee.

Mr. Bevin: The discussion up to now has evaded the fundamental principle that I laid down—and I think the whole Committee is conscious of that principle—Is Civil Defence a civilian job or is it a military job? That is the fundamental issue that has been answered. In this Bill we take the greatest care to keep it a civilian job, and I cannot admit the prin-


ciple of conscientious objection to civil work. I have to be straight on that. If I am not, there is not a single order that has been carried into industry that can be worked. You would have to apply conscientious objection to every man you transfer under the Order. You could not avoid the fact.

Mr. Maxton: What about the dockers?

Mr. Bevin: I would remind the hon. Member that they have no tribunal to which to go; they have no right of appeal, they have no appeal of this character. The only conscientious objection that has been carried by this House is that to military service. I must bring the Committee back to that principle. Subject to that, the rest is administrative. It is a question of common-sense administration; that is all. If the Committee wants to know what is in the back of my mind, I will say that I am not prepared to create a privileged class in this sense. I like to be quite frank about these things. Suppose there are two men in a factory, one of whom has been conditionally exempted and allowed to continue at his old job which becomes non-essential in the light of war development; suppose the other man is not a conscientious objector and is also on non-essential work. I must treat these two men on equal terms in the labour market if I am to transfer. It would mean that one man, conditionally let off, might be getting any salary, while the other would be called upon, in the national interest, because he was not a conscientious objector, to take an essential job, leaving the conscientious objector in a privileged position. I am sure the Committee does not want to place me in that position.
Now I come to the second category. These are people who have had conditional exemption but have been placed in

Division No. 9.]
AYES.



Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Collindridge, F.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'd, W.)
Broad, F. A.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc 'h. Univ.)
Brooke, H.
Craven-Ellis, W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crowder. J. F. E.


Assheton, R.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Culverwell, C. T.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Butcher, H. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)


Banfield, J. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cary, R. A.
Davies. Clement (Montgomery)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Channon, H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Beechman, N. A.
Charleton, H. C.
Denville, Alfred


Bellenger, F. J.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Dobbie, W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Christie, J. A.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Cluse, W. S.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Bird, Sir R. B
Cobb, Captain E. C.
Dugdale, Major T. L


Blair, Sir R.
Cooks, F. S.
Ede, J. C.

work analogous to this. They are what I would regard as administratively essential. I shall not move any man on essential work. For instance, agriculture is wholly reserved. I shall not move anybody from agriculture, and administratively I should not be such an idiot as to take one of these men away and create trouble elsewhere. Allow me to use my common sense. Anyone who takes a conscientious objector away from essential work and creates trouble for himself somewhere else is not a very wise administrator. In connection with the Friends' ambulance unit, nursing and hospital services, it is not my intention to disturb something which is working all right. But the power must be there. In law every citizen must be on equal terms so far as civilian work is concerned, and with that assurance I think the Committee might reject this Amendment.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: The Minister said he would not move any man, but once this Bill is passed is not all the power taken from his hands and put into the hands of others, such as the Minister of Home Security?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The actual calling-up of a person has to be done by the Minister of National Service. The position of the Minister of Home Security will be the same as in other services. He will not have a man until I have allocated him.

Mr. Wilson: Does that apply to men who have already been allocated by tribunals?

Mr. Bevin: It applies to everybody.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 2.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silkin, L.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Emery, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maitland, Sir A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Marnier, G. la M.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Martin, J. H.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Frankel, D.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Milner, Major J.
Summers, G. S.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
Sutcliffe, H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tate, Mavis C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm't)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Thorne, W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, G.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Train, Sir J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Paling, W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Parker, J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Peake, O.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Peat, C. U.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster).


Hepworth, J.
Peters, Or. S. J.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Holdsworth, H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Hopkinson, A.
Pym, L. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Hunter, T.
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)
Watson, W. McL.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Jagger, J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Weston, W. Garfield


Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Westwood, J.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham,


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rickards, G. W.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ridley, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M' ham)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lawson, J. J.
Rowlands, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leach, W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wilmot, John


Levy, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Col. Sir E. A.
Windsor, W.


Lindsay, K. M.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Woodburn, A.


Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Locker-Lampson, Commander O.S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C.


Loftus, P. C.
Savory, Professor D. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)



Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mabane, W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Young.


MoCorquodale, Flight-Lt. Malcolm S.
Shinwell, E.





NOES.


Gallacher,W.
Sloan, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 



Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:
but no Member of the House of Commons shall be liable under this Act.''
Almost every Member of the House who has no other function to perform more directly contributing to the war effort must very frequently hanker after something more, and must be unwilling to occupy the time of the House more than is necessary, and to-day there are very special reasons why we should not wish to take up the time of the House. Nevertheless, I think it right that someone should try to make sure that the House deliberates whether its Members ought or ought not to be conscriptable for anything short of military service. The

Amendment which I have moved is the only opportunity offered to the House to deliberate that question, which otherwise would go through as a matter of course without being discussed. I cannot hope at this hour, and perhaps a little because of my unattractiveness as an orator, that any very large number of hon. Members will deliberate upon that question, but I think there ought to be an opportunity for hon. Members to take that decision deliberately, and the very fact that on a subject of this sort, which, whatever else it is, is a question of some constitutional importance, it should be difficult to get the attention of more than a couple of dozen hon. Members, half of them inside the Government machine—[Interruption] — I have not counted exactly, but


not much less than half of them—is a reason why the House should pause before refusing to pass the Amendment.
The only arguments I have heard in favour of the Clause as it stands are two. The first is the argument that Members of Parliament should show a good example. I believe that sort of argument, which is what I call a gesture argument, is a very bad kind of argument. It is almost always wrong to do something which you are not sure is the right thing to do because you feel it will be a good example to somebody else. Of that bad class of argument, this particular case is, I think, a bad example, because, in truth, the House on the whole can say, without arrogance, that it has not been regarded as setting a bad example in this sort of connection during the war. The proportion of hon. Members who have thought it proper to undertake direct military service has been as much as the public thought was proper and decent. There are other classes of Members who, apparently, do not lose their prestige with the public because they contract out of the obligation to perform war services. I am not familiar with the details, and I apologise at once if my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is going to correct me, but I am informed, for instance, that trade union officials are reserved at the age of 25. I have nothing to say to the contrary; for all I have to say, it is right that they should be; but I have not observed that anyone has argued that they will thereby lose the respect of the public.
It seems to me clear that if Members of the House are to be in any way outside any kind of obligation for war services, it ought not to be, as in that case, by administrative action, but it ought to be either by their ancient privileges or by legislation. It ought not to be at the mercy of a single Minister that administrative action should put Members of Parliament in a reserved occupation. Indeed, so far as the argument about the impression created outside is concerned, I believe that the weight is rather on my side. A considerable number of members of the public, constituents of mine, and others with whom I have talked on this subject, are inclined to think that already too high a proportion of the Members of this House devote too high a proportion of their attention to non-Parliamentary duties. I

consider that the House of Commons runs the risk of losing prestige because it is felt outside that too many Members put their task here at the bottom of the class. I believe there is a greater risk there than in our being accused of feathering our own nests, which is an accusation against which I consider we are already protected.
The second argument in favour of the Bill as it stands is an argument which overlaps the first, although it is a little different from it. It is the argument of the distinction between civilian service and military service. That argument seems to me to be entirely false, and the Amendment is not introducing any such distinction. That distinction exists, and it has always existed. Legislation must be by way of definite categories, and the most clearly defined category we can find is the line of distinction between service in the Armed Forces and every other sort of service. The whole of the Debate so far, I would remind the Committee who have stood it and who are now standing me, has been conducted by the contributories to it, and most conspicuously by the Minister of Labour, on the principle that Civil Defence service and military service are entirely and absolutely defined, and that it would knock the Bill sideways if it was suggested that that was not so. Therefore, I hope that I may be allowed to make that assumption too, and" to say that there is a distinction which is not invented by me or introduced by my Amendment. I would be the last to suggest, however, that that distinction represents any moral superiority on the one side or the other. There are men in the Army who are not so brave or so useful as men and women outside the Army, who may be of the utmost usefulness and have the utmost bravery. But whether or not the Army or the civilian services are the more important or the less dispensable is really as unnecessary as to debate whether a man would get on better if his head was cut off or his heart was cut out. It is not a relevant question, and we need draw no distinction between the virtue and valour of the civilian defence as against the military defence in order to pass this Amendment.
Distinction of some sort does exist. It is a distinction as old as the hills, and it is perhaps the oldest of all distinctions in politics —the distinction between mili-


tary service and every other kind of service, a distinction which has been emphasised by every speaker during the Debate. The nature and essence of Parliamentary functions are inextricably bound up with the distinction to which I have just drawn attention, and since the memory of man it has not run to the contrary. Our functions and privileges depend upon the essential and unequivocably old principle that when a man receives two summonses he should obey the higher of the two. In the United Kingdom the highest summons a man can receive is a summons to the King's Colours, and next comes the summons to the King's Courts, especially the summons to attend upon the King's High Court of Parliament. It is upon that that the whole of the functions and all the Privileges of this House have been built.. It seems to me it is of the utmost importance that that should not be varied without careful deliberation by the House of Commons.
Besides this point of principle, there are certain practical considerations with which I am afraid I must delay the Committee a little further. There are fewer newspapers than there were, and the newspapers which are published are smaller. Therefore the functions and discussions of the House of Commons are all the more important, and it is all the more important for Members to indulge in reading and thinking and talking with the people. This function is of greater importance than it has ever been. Secondly, there are many Members who are now on military service. That is not an argument that there should be more Members absent on civilian service, but is an argument against it. Frequently, in Debate, we have had the argument used that if there is so much of a thing, then the pass is sold and you must not argue against it. That is the most illogical of all possible arguments, and it should not be used here. It necessarily follows in war-time that a great number of Members are called away from the House of Commons —I think at present about one-quarter of the Members have been called away—and therefore the House of Commons should not pass anything to facilitate the removal of any more.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Perhaps the hon. Member will

explain how this Bill will increase the number of Members who will be away.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was just about to say that I knew the answer which would be given, namely, that if Members were summonable for one purpose it did not matter making them summonable for another. I do not think that it as a good a debatable point as my hon. Friend seems to think. The greater number of purposes for which a man may be taken, the more clearly are the chances increased that he will be taken. If that is not so, the whole argument for bringing within the scope of this Bill the class of persons referred to completely falls to the ground and loses all possible validity. It is found incompatible that service upon a jury comes within the scope of the Bill. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers often referred to the House of Commons as the Great Inquest of the nation. It seems clear to me that if it is incompatible as a jurist to come within the scope of this Bill, then a fortissimi it should be incompatible with service in this House. Of the two, it should be the Bill which goes and not the House. It is true that this Measure is only for the time being, and that it would cease to exist after the emergency. It is also true that we are doing something by Act of Parliament, and that an Act of Parliament can undo anything that has been done, but an Act of Parliament cannot cause something which is done to be as if it had never been done. I therefore invite the House to consider carefully whether there ought to be made a breach in the traditional character of Parliament and legal government in this country, and whether the advantage that there would be in it is sufficient to make it worth while that such a breach should be made.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: I feel that my right hon. Friend should consider this question very carefully. A Member of Parliament under this Bill will be put in a strange position. He wishes to do the best he can for his country. If military service claims him, he will join up, and, when occasion permits, he will get an opportunity of coming to the House and will be able to represent his constituents at the right moment. Many people to. whom I have talked consider that a Member of Parliament should be able to come here and put


his constituents' case and do what he was elected to do. Some people rather resent the idea that he should be drawing pay as a member of the Forces as well as his salary as a Member of this House. Nevertheless, I believe that, if the country demanded that he should join up for military service, that is his job, and I do not think there is a single person who would not think that the right thing to do. I am sure his constituents would think so. When the war started I asked my constituents what they would feel if the Navy were to call me back to the Service. They said they would certainly approve my position in being called back to service. On that I offered my services to the Navy if they were required. That is all right in the case of military service where a Member can come back to the House and state the case on behalf of his constituents, but in the case of a civilian job I wonder whether he is in exactly the same privileged position. It means that he would come here at the risk of upsetting the routine of the employment. The duties of a Member of Parliament are, I will not say superior, but as vitally essential and as important as any civilian job that he might be asked to perform in the interests of his country. For these reasons I ask that the Amendment should be favourably considered.

Mr. Martin: It seems to me that membership of the House is either an essential part of the war effort or it is not, and, if it is not, the Government should intimate that it is more important that we should go out and find war functions of various sorts than waste our time coming here day after day contributing, as far as we are able, in various ways to the conduct of the war. I cannot help casting my mind back to those very anxious days in May last when a number of hon. Members opposite—all honour to them—were instrumental in causing a change of Government at a very critical time in our history. When the history of the war comes to be written, I think we shall find that victory is owed as much to the action of hon. Members on that occasion as to any other single incident during the war. I cannot help feeling that such an occasion may arise again before the war is finished. To say that it is really not very important whether a large number of Members come here or not

and that if the older Members who are not particularly wanted care to come, they can, is not to treat the House with the respect that it deserves or to treat the war with the effort and concentration that are required. It puts a Member of the House in an invidious position to be called up by a civilian Service and to say, "I have important duties to my constituency, for the duties of a Member to his constituency are more numerous and complex now and much more urgent than before the war." To say, "I have my duties to my constituency, and I must go off and leave this job to be done by the next man," is not fair to the Member of Parliament nor to the man who has to take his place. I urge the Government not to reject the Amendment, but to consider seriously whether the House does not at this stage require something more, both in respect and in encouragement and clarification of the position that Members occupy.

Mr. McGovern: I am rather interested in this proposal. I think that, for sheer impertinence, it would be hard to find anything worse. We understand that Members of Parliament should not be called up in the ordinary way for duties assigned to the average civilian. One would think that a Member of Parliament had something more important in life to do than the average civilian, who may have a wife and children, home, friends and his position to occupy him and to protect. At the same time, it is suggested that Members of Parliament shall reserve the right to decide when war shall take place and to order men to sacrifice their lives, but shall themselves be immune.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think there is any suggestion that Members of Parliament should be immune from service in the Armed Forces.

Mr. McGovern: If I understand the proposal, it is that Members of Parliament shall not be called upon.

Mr. Pickhorn: For the Civil Defence services.

Mr. McGovern: I do not care whether it is for Civil Defence or not; Members of Parliament should go through the routine through which the average person outside the House is called upon to go through. Shortly after the war started I asked a Member who was of military age whether he thought he ought to serve, and he said,


You are asking me a pertinent question, and I will give you a direct answer. I think Members of Parliament should be immune from service in the Armed Forces." That is an outrageous attitude to adopt. If civilians outside, many of them with conscientious objections to war, are to be called upon to serve, Members of Parliament ought to be called on in the same way. They have decided that the war is just and that it shall be fought out, and they should perform the ordinary functions that civilians are called upon to perform. One of the great arguments that we hear for the war is that Parliamentary democracy would be in danger if there were a Nazi victory, and Members of Parliament would probably find themselves in concentration camps if Hitler secured a victory. Is it to be assumed that Members of Parliament must call upon the man on the means test to defend Parliamentary government from which the Members derive social status and a certain remuneration and that they themselves are to be immune from serving?
One hon. Member said that he found that people in the country thought that Members of Parliament should attend to their duties here and that that was sufficient service. That is not my experience. My experience is that people in the country feel that not sufficient Members are in the Armed Forces or the Defence services and taking part in the risks and sacrifices which ordinary civilians have undertaken. What argument is there for a large percentage of the Members being in the House? Are we not developing a totalitarian form of government? The Whip stands in the corridor and tells Members which lobby to go into, saying," In you go, whether you like it or not. "Surely we could pass a simple Measure delegating to the Whip for the period of the war the duty of voting on all Measures so that Members need not be required to attend at all.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. McGovern: I am trying to answer the difficulties and objections that Members see to this procedure, and as there are comparatively few independent Members who decide things on their merits, the way out is not difficult. If the Minister of Labour has the power under this Bill

to call in ordinary civilians and to set aside decisions made by tribunals, he should have the power to compel Members of Parliament to go into every dangerous calling and occupation. Members ought to perform all the duties that we expect civilians to perform.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): A good many of the arguments in favour of the Amendment have either been made under a misapprehension or ought to have been made at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) seemed to be under the impression that this Bill will increase the number of Members who may be required to give service. That, of course, is not so. The Bill deals merely with the allocation as between the services of people called up. Not one additional Member of Parliament will be called up when the Bill becomes law. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) seemed to be under the impression that he might be called up for full-time duties in Glasgow. I know that he has the secret of perennial youth, but I would point out that this Bill relates only to those who come within the ambit of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will my hon. Friend say that there are no Members in the House of the prescribed age for calling up or that the age will not be increased later on?

Mr. Mabane: If it is, it will be increased for the other Services at the same time. The Bill merely relates to the allocation of people who are called up.

Mr. Pickthorn: It increases the number of Services into which they may be called.

Mr. Mabane: But it does not increase the number of Members of Parliament who may be called up. The hon. Member said there were two arguments advanced for Members of Parliament undertaking these duties. The first was that Members should show a good example, but he demolished that argument because he said it was a bad one. In his second argument he drew a distinction between the military and the Civil Defence services. As I listened to him, I was reminded of some comments that were made before the war when people sometimes suggested that men who joined the


fire service were joining an easy service. That has been proved false. The Civil Defence services have won their spurs, and no one would suggest that there should be discrimination between what are commonly called the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence services that would have as its purpose and its consequence the rating of the Civil Defence services lower in the scale of virtue and valour, as the hon. Gentleman put it. We are anxious to lift the status of the Civil Defence forces, for in them people are performing the duty of defence with a valour, vigour and skill which the whole country admires. We cannot accept the Amendment. If membership of Parliament is not to be a reserved occupation, Members cannot be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

Mr. G. Strauss: I would like to make a comment on the reply made by the Government, because I do not think it completely covers the issue. May I say by way of preliminary that my view is that it is the first duty of a Member of Parliament to attend to his Parliamentary duties? I believe that that duty comes above any other, including service in the Armed Forces, because if a Member does not attend to his Parliamentary duties, his constituency is disfranchised. It is his first duty to defend the liberties of the Realm, and look after the interests of his constituents. The only place he can do that is here. The attitude of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is definitely Fascist when he suggests that It is not essential for a Member of Parliament to attend to his Parliamentary work. There is no bigger service that a Member can render, anyhow in many localities, than to be constantly with his constituents, particularly during a time when his constituency is being severely raided. However, let that pass.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member explain a little further? He spoke of a Member being with his constituents when the constituency was being raided as being the most important thing that a Member can do. It is possible for a London Member to be with his constituents during raids and to attend to his work here, but it is not possible for Members from the North or Scotland to do those two things.
I face this as a personal issue of conduct. Where should I be? It is obvious that when two places are 400 miles apart I cannot be in both at the same time.

Mr. Strauss: That may be. I put the argument that a Member is doing a national service by being with his constituents not as the only reason why a Member should attend to his Parliamentary duties first, but as an important one. If a Member is outside his constituency while it is being "blitzed" my experience shows that if he arrives there the next day and mixes among the people he is doing a very great service indeed, an invaluable service. But I agree that that big issue is not under discussion to-day. I should like to put this important point to the Government. A Member who joins the Armed Forces of the Crown is, according to King's Regulations, eligible to get leave to attend to his Parliamentary duties. I understand that leave must be granted to him not just to attend Parliament to speak or vote in the House but to attend to any of his Parliamentary duties. Any application to attend to his Parliamentary duties must be granted by the commanding officer. There are no King's Regulations applicable to Civil Defence work. A Member of Parliament who is sent to Civil Defence work may feel that it is his duty to come to Parliament to speak or vote on a certain matter, or to go to his constituents, and he may apply for leave, but the man in charge of the Service may say, "This is a little inconvenient and I cannot let you off." There is a difference which I think is very relevant to the issue we are discussing. I should like to know whether the Government contemplate some possible new King's Regulations applying to these Civil Defence Services which will enable a Member of Parliament who feels that it is duty to his constituents and to the country to do his Parliamentary work to be able to get away from Civil Defence work for that purpose. I can conceive that it would be more difficult to leave Civil Defence work than to leave the Army, say, when they are undergoing training, but I think it is most important that a Member should have at least the same opportunity to attend to his Parliamentary work when he is engaged in Civil Defence.

Mr. Mabane: Certainly the custom of the Services will be followed; but I would say that in many cases Members in the Army and the Navy are not in places from which they can as conveniently come to the House as in the case of Members in the Civil Defence Services.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman says that the custom of the Services will be followed. Perhaps he will answer another question. I am told that there is an Army Council Order instructing commanding officers not merely to give leave but to allow any of their subordinates who may wish to do so to be absent indefinitely upon waiving their pay. I should like to know whether that is so, and if so whether it is going to apply to these Services. If that is so does it not whittle the thing down until what we are claiming is a kind of false principle, with nothing practical in it, because I would point out that the amount of work that is going to be got out of Members of Parliament in this way is going to be infinitesimal.

Mr. Mabane: I do not know whether there is such an instruction as the hon. Member refers to.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert:
( ) if any conditionally registered conscientious objector notifies the Minister in the manner prescribed by the Minister that he desires to be allowed to continue to undertake the work specified by the tribunal as a condition of his registration, the Minister may suspend his liability to be called up for civil defence, and may also refer the application to the appellate tribunal which may recommend that the condition of registration should continue in force or that it should be varied.
This is a very much more limited Amendment than the one we were discussing some time ago. In spite of the reassuring words of the Minister of Labour, I still believe that it is of great importance to have a safeguard of this nature in the Bill itself. My right hon. Friend showed himself very broad-minded in his statement about the way in which he will carry out the administration of this Measure. He assured us there was no intention to take away conscientious objectors from useful work on the land, or in a hospital or an ambulance unit, and it is encouraging to have that assurance, but, after all, we are making

an Act of Parliament, and we have no safeguard in the Measure itself that the type of administration will always actually be carried out. We may not always be dealing with the present Minister of Labour, and even under the best of Ministers and the ablest of Departmental officials there may be mistakes and errors. A conscientious objector who is already doing useful work in accordance with the decision of a tribunal ought to have some right of appeal to be allowed to remain in that work rather than be called up to a service which he feels unable to render. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision as to putting into the text of the Bill some safeguard of this character. It is not merely an imaginary position with which he is faced. He spoke in an intervention about the Christadelphians' attitude. I have referred to the letter which was sent by members of that body to him about a week ago, and there, I find, it is clearly stated that they have objected all along to Civil Defence work. They do not object to doing civil work like land work, and large numbers of them have left their own occupations to undertake it, but they would feel the strongest objection to being called upon to become members of a Civil Defence force. They are only one group out of a number of people who will be affected, and there can be no doubt that if there is no provision of this kind in the Bill cases will occur which I am sure the Minister wants to avoid, cases which will lead to a very real sense of injustice not only as far as the individual concerned is affected but also in a much wider circle.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. These Amendments seek to turn a Civil Defence question into a military one. If I accepted the Amendment, what would be the position of men who have gone into Civil Defence because of conscientious objection? Immediately you said that Civil Defence was a military matter you would bring before the tribunals every man who had already taken that Civil Defence work and had satisfied his conscience. They would want to come back and have their cases considered all over again. If you put the tribunals into the Bill you imply that we are not dealing with a civil occupation. An hon. Member


shakes his head, but I assure him that it is so.

Mr. Messer: It does not seem a sound argument.

Mr. Bevin: Is there any sound argument in any of it? People have said that my attitude is not logical, but you cannot introduce the rules of logic into conscientious objection. Not even the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton) can do that. I can assure hon. Members that the undertakings given will be carried out, whether I remain in this office or not. I have confidence that the Department will not go back on them. I cannot put into the Bill the implication contained in the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister arrange this matter in such a way that all people who are entitled to it will have some hope of release and of carrying on their lives m as normal a way as circumstances allow? If someone has a conscientious objection to doing a particular work and refuses to do it, is he to be sentenced and imprisoned, as happened in the last war? Leaders in the Labour movement are strongly opposed to that condition of affairs, and some effort should be made to put it right. I cannot accept the Minister's argument that to provide an opportunity for those who do not want to do Civil Defence work will raise the whole question again for those who are already doing that work. Those who have gone into Civil Defence with a clear conscience are aware that other objectors are not prepared to do so. If some opportunity were given for those who refused because of their conscience to do Civil Defence work, that could not affect those who are already in Civil Defence.
I am troubled about another case. I have had a letter from a Minister about one of my colleagues who has been put out of one of the Services for expressing opinions which his officer and others did not like. I do not know whether he will go into Civil Defence, but if he does, and expresses opinions again which authorities in the Civil Defence service do not like, I wonder whether he will be pushed out of Civil Defence. What is to happen in a case like that? I am satisfied that the Minister's argument has no basis when he suggests that those who

are already doing Civil Defence work with a clear conscience would not remain there with a clear conscience if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Maxton: I am sorry that the Minister has not seen his way to accept this very moderately drafted Amendment. I cannot see what his difficulty is. He says that he cannot see any logic in it, but it is only his slavish desire for logic that makes him reject it. Logic cannot be employed in this matter, which is concerned with right and wrong. Logic has nothing to do with right and wrong; right and wrong are higher matters. I have listened to what has been done at the tribunals, where young fellows have been taken step by step to a logical absurdity by members of the tribunals, who have then said that the applicants had not a genuine and real conscience. The Minister appears to be falling into exactly that attitude. He says, "If I leave the general grounds of this Bill, I at once say that it is a military Bill for military service, whereas it is a Bill for civilians, parallel to my power to transfer workers from one industry or part of industry to another."
It is not the same as that; otherwise the Minister could carry out the object of the Bill by the use of his existing powers instead of coming here to ask for ne registrations. It is something different. Admittedly it is not military service, but it is somewhere between the two. The Minister must recognise that he cannot stand hard and fast on the principle that he has laid down. I do not know what the reason may be, but he stands at that Box and says, "I must not depart from this principle, or I shall be on the slippery slope that will land me into all sorts of difficuties" The Minister will be in difficulties whatever he does. He has to examine this matter, not from the point of view of what will cause difficulty for him, but from the point of view of what is fair and square and what will meet the needs of the community. The community has needs in this matter. He has to try to meet the needs of individual objectors, who are a very small minority. I do not think he will give away anything at all of his basic principle if he accepts the Amendment. He will be strengthening it.
The Minister is saying that he will be able to call upon people for Civil Defence


just as the war Ministries are calling upon people for fighting purposes, but in the same way that the Services have laid down machinery by which citizens who object on conscientious grounds may make application not to participate, so the Minister can quite well say that he is prepared to recognise some exceptions. The service Ministers recognise exceptions, but very few. Very few people have asked to be regarded as exceptions, while out of the few who have so asked only a minority have been recognised. The Minister, if he thinks that this is an important matter, can quite logically recognise that there may be individuals who feel that they cannot do this type of work, and who want to be safeguarded from being compelled to do it. The Minister can concede the principle of this Amendment not only not giving away, but actually reinforcing, the principle which is already well-established. I propose to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Logan: What would you do if they all wanted the same class of employment?

Mr. Maxton: I have already answered that point on the previous Amendment. One can conjure up the conception of a revolutionary state in this country, and one would have to cope with that revolutionary state when it arose, but at the moment we are not contemplating such a position. We are safeguarding the interests of a minority against the big masses.

Mr. Messer: I desire to express my gratitude to the Minister for his assurance that he will not disturb those who have already been allocated by the tribunals certain types of work, but I want also to put this logical point to him. When he says that he will not disturb those who have already undertaken conditional employment, what logic is there in doing that administratively and not legislatively? If it is logical to do it by administration, there is no reason why it should not be done by legislation, because the right hon. Gentleman will not always be the Minister of Labour. I am sorry for that, but it is a fact. When the original Bill went through, we had certain guarantees, and those guarantees are being departed from. Any assurance which the Minister gives we must accept, but why is it that a tribunal decides that

certain appellants should do certain types of work? It is because the man who appeals has submitted his case, and, on consideration of the evidence submitted, the tribunal say, "You have shown that you have a conscientious objection to taking life, but you have not satisfied us by that evidence that you have a conscientious objection to war, and, therefore, we give you an exemption on condition that you do a certain type of work not remote from the war." If a conscientious objector who has that condition imposed upon him is called up, it is clear that all that the tribunal have been doing is to examine the evidence which has been deduced to satisfy themselves that the evidence which might apply with regard to conscience has gone. The Minister of Labour can then put that man into any Civil Defence work he likes.
Although the Minister says that he cannot see how anyone can have a conscientious objection to Civil Defence, and although I confess that I cannot, I have to admit that other people can, and they are the people who hold that view. It is not for me to say that because it is an unreasonable view it is not sincerely held. Anyone who has dealt with people who are really conscientious objectors knows just what it means to them. Latimer and Cranmer went to the stake for conscience, but it was a ridiculous thing in the eyes of the people who burned them. There was the case of a famous man who said in a loud voice, "The earth is flat" but who, in a quiet voice, said that it was round all the same. He would have died for his conscience. I am asking that the machinery, which has determined by virtue of this process of examination of evidence that a man may hold a conscientious view which justifies his being given a certain type of work, should be applied to others. I do not want to get into the realms of logic. The most illogical thing was the passing of the Military Service Act, with its conditional provisions with regard to conscientious objectors. We should do the best we can in the interests of the nation, and if we are to do that, it is only wise to recognise that a conscientious objector who says he does not mind doing afforestation will do it much more efficiently than if he is made to do something to which he has an objection. I hope


that the Minister will keep local authorities in mind in this respect. I am a member of a local authority which has carried a resolution to the effect that conscientious objectors shall not be discharged but shall be given leave of absence without pay until the end of the

Division No. 10.]
AYES.



Adams, D. (Consett)
McGhee, H. G.
While, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Buchanan, G.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Dobbie, W
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)



Gallacher, W.
Silverman, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Hardie, Agnes
Sloan, A.
Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.


Harvey, T. 
Stoke, R. R.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McCorquodale, Flight-Lt. Malcolm S.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Ellis, Sir G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Agnew Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emery, J. F.
McEntee, V. La T.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B 'k' d, W.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKinlay, A. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Assheton, R
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maitland, Sir A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher, Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Foot, D. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Banfield, J. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Molson, A. H. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Frankel, D.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Fraser, Capt. Sir Ian
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mort, D. L.


Blair Sir R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Nail, Sir J.


Boulton, W. W.
Gledhill, G.
Naylor, T. E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Boyce, H. Leslie
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peake, O


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, H.
Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Pym, L. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cadogan, Sir E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cary, R. A.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepworth, J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Holdsworth, H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Richards, R.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rickards, G. W.


Collindridge, F.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ridley, G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, T
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M' ham)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hurd, Sir P A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jagger, J.
Rowlands, G.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ruggles-Brise, Col. Sir E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Culverwell, C. T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Daggar, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Savory. Professor D. L.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Selley, H. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
King-Hall, Commander, W. S. R.



De la Bère, R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Denville, Alfred
Law, R. K.
Silkin, L.


Doland, G. F.
Lawson, J. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Drewe, C.
Levy, T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dugdale, Major T. L
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Dunn, E.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J


Ede, J. C.
Loflus, P. C.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H' gton-le-Spring)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Logan, D. G.
Storey, S.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mabane, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)

war. That authority is badly in need of stretcher-bearers, and the conscientious objectors should be given an opportunity of stretcher-bearing.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 216.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wakefield, W. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Summers, G. S.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Willink, H. V.


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Walkdan, E. (Doncaster).
Wilmot, John


Sutcliffe, H.
Walker, J.
Windsor, W.


Tate, Mavis C.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Woodburn, A.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Woolley, W. E.


Thorne, W.
Watkins, F. C.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Tinker, J. J.
Watson, W. McL.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Tomlinson, G.
Wells, Sir S. Richard
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Touche, G. C.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 


Train, Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Whiteley.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —[Mr. James Stuart.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS, 1939 AND 1940.

THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (SUNDAYOPENING).

Mr. Magnay: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 28th February 1941, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, amending Regulation 42B of, and adding Regulation 42BA to, the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th March 1941, be annulled.
I hope the Members of the House can understand the official English of the Prayer. It is rather involved, and in a minute or two, if the House will be good enough to listen to me, I will give it in more detail. It seems to me, however, that before we can understand the full import of the suggested amendment of the Regulation we must have some knowledge of the background, of the cause of its being brought forward in this House in the midst of a war in which we are fighting for our lives and which we see as a spiritual crusade. The last 10 years or so will be known in history as the age of debunking. All things that are sweet and reasonable and Christian have been more and more jeered at and flouted during the last decade or so. We know that art and literature have been befouled; we have only to see some statues in public places, which are supposed to be things of beauty and ought to be a joy for ever, to know how art has been debased, to all men and women of real sense and feeling. We

know that in literature every man is a cad and every woman a vamp, incipient or in fact.

Viscountess Astor: Thank you.

Mr. Magnay: The noble Lady as usual, I am sorry to say, ejaculates before she has heard anything of what has transpired. I say that art and literature have been debased—and music, too. We have the devotees of St. Vitus' dance, called jazz, making their irregular way through what they call music, and volplaning down a chromatic scale. You hear crooners breaking their hearts every night—if anybody broke their necks I should not be sorry. Things are coming to a dreadful pass for anyone who has eyes to see, who has spiritual vision, and who can do the most difficult of all things, read the signs of the times. In regard to cinemas and theatres, London has usually led the way in this declension, as you might expect. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why? "] I will tell you why. It is a cosmopolitan city; it has no communal life for a check. I could tell you in five minutes the name of everyone who matters in Newcastle or Glasgow or Edinburgh, but in London they are as numerous as the lamposts. London is the playground of the idle rich. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It has stood up to Hitler."] And it is the hardest place in the world for the poor to live in. They exist only in drab, dreary, dowdy streets.
The London cinemas unlawfully opened on Sundays in the 'thirties. The 'thirties was a disillusioned period—in many respects, an unmoral, if not immoral, period. When the cinemas opened illegally the theatrical folk took action against them. The judgment of the court was that it was illegal to open the cinemas on Sundays. The cinema proprietors were not punished. They came to this House and said that if we gave them the only thing they wanted, they would never require anything else of us. So Sunday


opening was made legal. How does that 1932 Act work? In the area of the London County Council the status quo was maintained. Under the able direction of the L.C.C., and with the good will of the proprietors, Sunday opening is well managed, and, under the provisions of the Act, contributions have been made to charities. With some exceptions, it might be said that for several years Sunday opening of cinemas was confined to the South of England. Until the war came, the great industrial North had found no use for the Act of 1932. The same thing applied to Wales, to East Anglia, to the Midlands, with the exception of Birmingham, and to Devon and Cornwall Cities such as Liverpool, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Leeds and Bradford are still, by their own choice, without Sunday cinemas. Bristol allowed a proportion of the cinemas to open. Cardiff received a plea that cinemas were wanted for the troops. The authorities offered to allow two cinemas to open, but the proprietors declined. Their attitude was all or nothing. It was not a question of the convenience of the troops with them.
Manchester allowed Sunday opening a fortnight ago, but according to Press reports the attendances on, the first Sunday were very disappointing. The "Daily Mail" did not say so. The "Daily Mail" clapped its hands with glee. The afternoon and evening performances were attended by 50,000 people. The "Daily Mail'' made a great song about the results for charities. Charity was to receive £2,000. That, according to my calculation, is 40,000 shillings. Not quite 10d. was the average contribution for charity of all the people attending these cinemas. I wonder who got the rake-off before that £2,000 was turned over to charity. It would be very interesting to know. Scotland was exempted from the previous Act, as it is intended to be from this new Regulation. In September, 1939, a Regulation was made empowering local authorities to permit Sunday opening, on a certificate by a competent military authority that it was considered advisable to open cinemas on Sundays where large numbers of members of His Majesty's Forces were quartered. Draft orders were made and sent to the Home Secretary, there being no poll or plebiscite or voting, as was the case under the 1932 Act. Because it was for the convenience of the

military, I imagine Members of this House took no notice. I confess that I did not take any notice, although it may have been remiss of me. So much for the cinemas.
The demand for Sunday theatres is not something that has arisen because of wartime conditions. It was being inspired long before the war by the financiers of the theatrical world. Under this Regulation there are to be no contributions to charity; charity Has gone by the board. I would point out that there is no unanimity among the actors and actresses, from what I know about them. The living stage is entirely different from the cinema. This proposal involves the employment of actors and actresses and of all employed around the theatres, on Sundays, and no other free day is adequate compensation for the loss of Sundays. Speaking for myself—for many may not agree with me—t say that all this technique of sapping and mining the morale of our people that have gone on for years is fifth column work. I say that deliberately. There is no chance of Hitler or anyone else outside this country forcing his will upon our people by open methods; but they are far too clever, unscrupulous and subtle to try that. They embark upon a process of sapping and mining, of careful propaganda, not mixing it too strong at the beginning, creating what they call public opinion, to deride Christianity. Some would deliberately close the churches if they dared. But their technique is that of a far more subtle insidious propaganda. Their plan is to get the people away from the churches. When the 1939 Regulations went through the general public were not much interested, and few in this House were disturbed. It was a military command, as I said before, and a temporary arrangement only for the duration of the war. This has evidently been taken as apathy, and the big financiers behind the cinemas, the big financial interests involved in the amusement world, I think in imagination, said to themselves," This is time to go the whole hog for military and workers." The old Regulation of 1939 is for the military alone. This is for the workers. They do not say that it is for all the people. They are too astute for that. They say it is for the military, and the huge conglomeration of workers. But when you have taken


away the military and all the workers, whom have you left? There are no elections for Parliament, no getting at Members and no elections in the county councils or borough councils, but a Cockney Home Secretary, with the London background, the conqueror of Waterloo Bridge, and the Minister of Labour and—mark this—National Service to push it quietly through this House. The Minister of Labour and National Service believes in the voluntary principle. He would not coerce the dockers in an hon. Member's constituency, not he, but he would coerce this House, and if we will stand for that, we will stand for anything. What is the purport of the Regulation? The competent military authority has his job, and "a competent industrial authority" is proposed to be set up to give a certificate, that
having regard to circumstances arising out of war conditions in which industrial work is carried on in a particular area, is of opinion that premises in that area should be opened and used on Sundays for entertainments, that authority shall furnish a certificate stating that it is of that opinion.
That is all one sentence. That certificate is sent to the local council to consider. There is no plebiscite as under the old machinery, nothing of the kind. The local council—not the licensing authority or a magistrate—if they agree, submit a draft order to the Home Secretary to that effect, and if the Home Secretary is satisfied he makes the Order. But it must come on to the Floor of this House for approval. I make no threat. We have turned one cheek to the cinemas, and, if this Regulation passes, we shall turn the other, I suppose, but there is no reason to say that we will turn anything else. We must stand up for our rights and privileges and for honour and prestige of this House, and vote against this Regulation, and call a halt. Nothing will absolve us from our responsibilities.
It is no use telling me and my constituents that this is a Government measure, when we know there are only two Departments concerned. It will be seen that this competent industrial authority is to be given very wide powers. Nobody knows who they are; nobody has the slightest idea. I hope that we get to know to-day. I wonder whether it is the welfare officers. I have a list of them.
I know the welfare officer of the Northern Division quite well, a friend of mine, but he is no better judge of what is required in the North, certainly in regard to Gates-head. I am the Member for Gateshead and nobody else, and I am as competent a judge as he to say what should be done in my constituency. I said to the Mayor on Saturday night that if I wanted any advice, I would go to him and ask for his opinion, but the welfare officer who has been put into this job for a few months is not competent to do this, if he should be the man concerned, and there is nobody else that I can see. The Minister of Labour and National Service must have someone to give him reports; he cannot go down and look into all these divisions himself. They are competent industrial authorities appointed by him to report to him. What makes them competent, not only to judge, mark you, but to set the Regulations going?
Is there really any need for the amusement of our workers on Sundays compared with the last war? Let us hear what the industrial North has said this week-end. This is taken from the "Sunday Sun" of Newcastle:
Mr. Bowman, Tyne District Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, contrasted the night shift of 13 hours in the last war with the ten hours now. The working week then was one of 53 hours and to-day it is one of 47 hours. The present system preserves continuity of production and the health of the worker.
That is what they think in the North-East. There is no one who approves it; no one in Gateshead, with 78,000 voters and 110,000 in population. No one has said to me that I am doing wrong. If anybody doubts that, let him resign from his seat, and I will resign from mine and fight out an election there. Let the loser pay election expenses; I shall be all right on this issue. The trade union leaders are now talking; these are not my words but theirs:
An 'Evening Chronicle' representative made a number of inquiries to-day from responsible officials of employers' organisations in the shipbuilding, shiprepairing, engineering and other industries engaged on war work, and trade union leaders, and not one had received any information or guidance about the new regulation. Mr. Lawrence, Secretary of the Tyne and Blyth Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, said that his Association, representing 40 unions, knew nothing about the regulation except what had appeared in the Press.


So who is making this overpowering demand? I know not. I suggest that I shall hear from other sources that the Ministry of Labour and National Service has been inundated by correspondence demanding this. Trade union leaders on Tyneside know nothing about it. Neither do the local authorities. On Saturday morning I got a letter from the Town Clerk, in which he said:
I understand that the Draft Order has been prepared in connection with the opening of places of entertainment on Sunday. Could you let me have a copy of it if you have one in your possession.
He, like us, is in the dark. Who is managing this behind the scenes? Who is engineering this demand? Before such a far-reaching proposal was decided upon by the Labour Department chiefs what evidence did they have of any demand? I suggest that the evidence was the other way. I can quote figures from Chesterfield and Nottingham about what happened there in regard to the opening of cinemas. The Chief Constable of Chesterfield says in a report that cinemas were apparently opened for the entertainment of troops, but that from his observation of town and district cinemas on 15th December and 26th January soldiers were in a minority. On 26th January there were 463 children at the afternoon performance of one cinema, and at the evening performance not one soldier was there. The Chief Constable of Nottingham says that only 50 of 1,700 people who entered one of the leading city cinemas were members of the Forces.
But I need not go to Nottingham or Chesterfield. I went to Gateshead. The mayor there is running cinema performances for charity, and on Sunday night two men whom I can trust took note of the numbers going through each door at the cinema. Adults numbered 824, children under 16 numbered 242, and members of His Majesty's Forces numbered 83.

Mr. A. P. Herbert: What about theatres?

Mr. Maǵnay: When the hon. Member who has just interrupted broadcast on Sunday night he said that he stood for all the loved institutions of England, and I said to myself, "He will vote for me," because Sunday is the greatest of all our institutions. In England it is the bulwark of our Christianity. At another

cinema there were 1,324 people present—perhaps because there was no jazz on anywhere—and of these 24 were children under 16 years of age, and 102 represented His Majesty's Forces. Not 7 percent. of the attendance were soldiers. Yet it is said there is a public demand. Let those who say so bring forward the evidence if they can. The news that this Regulation was to be made was received with paeans of praise by the Press. On the very day that I entered the Vote Office and asked whether it was true that the Regulation had been printed, and received the answer, "Not yet," I saw the "Evening Standard" at King's Cross Station, half-an-hour afterwards. In big headlines it said that the first shows would be on 20th April and spoke about getting ready to open. It was a terrific shock to me, and I said to my colleagues on the train that it was time we got busy. That very night, when I got home I heard a conversation over the wireless between some bright fellows, those very charming, clever fellows. One of them said, "Don't you know, theatres and music halls are to be opened on Sunday? Great news, boys, what? Isn't it curious? — A dictator, Cromwell, closed theatres, and another dictator, Hitler, will open them." I thought that man evidently had as little sense as he had knowledge of true history. That is the sort of propaganda that is put across over the wireless. What the newspapers say is ''bossed" by a sub-editor with a blue-pencil, who crosses out what is not in consonance with the views of the advertisers and the big money.
How was this announcement received by the nation? It was received with amazement. The nation was shocked and grieved. I have received the most intimate letters, beautiful and devoted letters. Why are these people so concerned? It is because they are of the opinion of Voltaire; they have never heard of him, but they are of the same opinion as he was when he said that if he could capture the English Sunday, he could destroy Christianity. Why ought this Prayer which is before us to-day to be rejected? To put first things first, it ought to be rejected because it violates the Commandment of God. Some have denied that it does so, but I have a Prayer Book in my hand, and in it there is the Commandment to keep holy the


Sabbath day. Last Saturday night I met a Catholic friend of mine, and he said that no good Catholic could defend the opening of theatres and music-halls on Sunday. I asked why, and he said he would send me the Catechism. I have it here:
How are we to keep the Sunday holy? We are to keep the Sunday holy by hearing Mass and resting from servile works.
On no account must they employ anybody for their pleasure or gain on a Sunday. So the Catholic Church says. I maintain that the opening of theatres and music-halls on Sunday would offend and hurt abominably the Christian conscience of the nation. It would undermine the influence of the Church and irreparably damage the work of the Sunday Schools. I have been put on a panel by the Home Secretary to consider what is the cause of the huge rise in juvenile crime, which is60 per cent. higher than it was last year. Hundreds of thousands of our children are running the streets, unable to receive education and to be disciplined, every day of the week. On Sunday afternoons they might receive some education that would do them good and make them good citizens. Now it is proposed to open the theatres and music-halls on Sundays. If the Lord's Day is completely secularised, it will appear to be just the same as any other day, and will in fact soon become so. The observance of Sunday in worship, in rest, and in peace is the main evidence to show that this is a Christian country. I cannot put the matter better than it has been put by the present Prime Minister:
It is a divine and priceless institution.
I ask the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. P. Herbert) to note that.
It is a divine and priceless institution—a birthright of every British subject.
We cannot be any party as trustees of the people's rights and privileges to breaking that birthright. It is an indispensable anchor of our faith. Of course, when the highest men desire prayer and intercession, that is quite a different thing. A man may be content with national prayer and intercession, but for the rest of the year he is a half-timer. If anyone says that Dunkirk had nothing to do with the Day of Prayer, and that last week's happenings had nothing to do with Sunday's prayers, he can think so, but he will limit his spiritual insight by saying so. You

can call it a coincidence and cut prayer out altogether, but the wonderful wireless telegraphy of vivid thought can dispose the hearts not only of our men but of the enemy. If this anchor for Christian tradition is cut adrift—if it ceases to hold us—we are at once as a people, in the gravest danger of losing our soul.
I have a great many more things I could say, but I think it would be only fair if I brought my remarks to a conclusion, because I know many Members wish to speak, and there is little time for them to do so. I conclude by saying that I take the most serious view of this situation. To me it is a water-shed. I have stood at the head of the rivers Tyne and Wear. If the wind went West, it was the Tyne, and if it went East it was the Wear. It all depended on how the wind blew. If it blew from the East, the river went West, and for us if the wind blows from the East, we all go West. I pray—and I am not the only one, because there are millions who at this time are thinking and praying for us—that the wind may blow from out the fields of God upon the soul of this House.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I propose to be the first of the speakers to limit my remarks to 10 minutes. How far one will be able to do so I do not know, but I assure the hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. Magnay), who has moved this extremely important Motion and was bound to put his case at some length, that in limiting my remarks it is no reflection upon him. I do not wish to go over the ground he has covered and which others will cover. I recognise the fact that, whereas it is said that some 80 per cent. of our population never go inside a church except for deaths or marriages, it is true that we have to appeal to that 80 per cent. on grounds other than those directly of religion. I wish to speak from the point of view of the health of those concerned and the health of the nation. There are two different points of view. One relates to the health of those who are concerned. Some of my correspondents have mixed up the question to-day as if we were deciding the opening of cinemas as well as of theatres and music halls. That has nothing to do with the issue. We now have to consider whether we shall go one step further and allow the authorities to put forward an Order for the opening of theatres and music halls.
In the first place, 1 want to represent this as being a further inroad on what has seemed to us in the public health world as being a very serious question of a tax on the mental health of the people at large. One thinks of what are called the workers, the great mass of the insured population, but it applies to everyone equally. I am sure no class is immune from the fact that there has been this gradual inroad made upon the seventh day of rest. This matter is being put forward from the point of view of the necessary amusement and entertainment of the troops especially, and also of the workers on Sundays. We know how important it is that the troops should have somewhere to go on Sunday evenings, but the main possibility of entertainment for them, if they do not go to church, is the cinema, and cinemas are fairly common throughout the country, whereas theatres and music halls are less so, except in the towns. If you compare one with the other, think of the labour attached to theatres and music halls compared with that in cinemas. There are not only the actors and actresses and artists who take part in the performances, but the stage hands who have to prepare the stage beforehand, the dressing-room and green-room attendants, and the general mass of the people concerned in the ticket offices and so on, compared with whom those employed in cinemas are a very small number. Moreover, the theatres and music halls naturally draw from a wider congregation of clients, which entails a great deal of travelling, and although I am not opposed to a certain amount of travelling on Sundays, which is obviously desirable from the point of view of people getting into the country or going to see their friends, we must recognise the amount of labour entailed by travelling, especially if it is unnecessary, to those concerned in the locomotive industry, on the roads, or on the railways.
That is the point of view of those immediately concerned, but there is something further to be considered. There is the general question of Sunday observance. If you go back to the origin of Sunday observance, it is essentially a part of the physiological, medical or health requisite of the individual and the community. From the religious point of

view, the Bible starts off with the creation of the world and the enjoyment of one day in seven for rest. From the point of view of the health of the people as now understood, everyone recognises the necessity of a rest from work. It was found to be essentially so in the last war. So much was the constant drive of munition working telling on the health of the people that a special inquiry was made and a valuable report issued by Professor E. L. Collis on the health of the industrial worker. It was issued with all the authority of Government and obtained general recognition throughout the country. It showed the necessity first of rest pauses during the hours of work, and then of a proper amount of evening rest, and from that to a proper amount of weekly rest and a proper amount of annual rest or holidays. That is common ground to all of us and we have to consider in what way we can keep it going.
My medical colleagues outside and inside the House will agree that that is essential from the point of view of the most vital problem that we see in front of us. During the past 50 years we have gone a long way towards the prevention of preventable causes of physical illness, but there has been a slide down in mental unsettlement and unrest and all that flows from it. That is likely to be increased more and more, and the way in which the people's leisure is so often directed, largely by financial and commercial interests, towards jaunting and gadding about, away from the quieter forms of entertainment and amusement, is a serious inroad upon the people's mental health. I do not think it is possible to enlarge upon this, but we ought to recognise that the constant increase in the mobility of the people involves a great increase in unrest. I remember that one of the most striking lessons I had was in Japan during the Russo-Japanese War. I met a nurse who had been sent out by Her Gracious Majesty Queen Alexandra to see in what way we could help the Japanese Government. When in Manchuria she was one day on the roadside and saw Japanese troops marching up country. She noticed three Japanese soldiers drawing a handcart. They stopped in the heat of the day and deposited the cart. Two of them sat down to their meal, and the third went and plucked a lotus flower and put it in a cigarette tin for them to


look at. The working people of other countries enjoy beauty and restful amusement and entertainment, and the more we can do that the better. We are moving away from that direction, and I think that we are going steadily downhill as regards mental health. The worst of it is, as Professor Jowitt remarked, that the necessity for preventive methods is seldom recognised until it is too late to prevent the disease. That is a real danger to the health of the nation and by far the best preventive of the danger is the preservation of our Sundays for purposes that give the least labour to other people. The danger is what one may call the "jazzification" of Sundays, and I ask the House to refuse to sanction it in this case.

Mr. Crowder: I intervene for a few moments as a member of the Church of England and for other reasons because I feel so strongly that this proposal will do much more harm than good from the point of view of our national war effort at this critical time. What most people want in these days of hard work, stress and strain, speed and noise is some time for a little rest and quiet. Therefore I say what better day to choose than Sunday? We have heard a lot on the wireless lately and have read a good deal in the Press about the need for building a new world, the need for more religious education in our schools and there has been a great call for a higher tone and outlook in life, both in our private lives and our public lives, and if we are sincere and believe in these ideals, surely we should not at this time, When we are facing the greatest crisis that this country has ever known, seek to extend the scope of Sunday entertainment for the benefit of a small number of theatre and music hall proprietors when, in my opinion, they will be frequented in most cases only by the leisured few.
If we had as fearless and far-seeing leadership in the Church to-day as we have in the State it would not be necessary for me to stand here as a mere layman to plead the cause of trying to keep our. Sundays in keeping with our country's great traditions. These traditions have, I maintain, given us the foundation of our character as a nation, our toleration of all creeds and races and our willingness to help all nations whether they be great or small. They have given us our power of

resistance, and it should be our determination to continue to preserve these traditions and our very soul. The Prime-Minister last week made a dramatic announcement. He said "I have great news to tell you. Yugoslavia has found her soul. "Do not let us do anything which will help to destroy our own. Do not let us lose what is particularly British and precious to so many, or we shall have what will undoubtedly become as time goes, a continental Sunday. That is what will surely happen if we allow ourselves to slip much further down the slippery slope.
If this Order is approved I am certain we shall have demands from various vested interests to have dog-racing, horse-racing, all-in wrestling, boxing and other attractions of a money-making kind on Sundays. Let there be no doubt about it, this Order is the thin end of the wedge for more and more demands. Religious life in this country will then be pushed aside step by step. I feel it my duty to do what I can to help the younger generation of this country and not to make things more difficult for them. Never has there been more need than there is to-day for Christian influence in our homes and in our lives to help up to stand firm and resolute against whatever perils and difficulties are in store for us. If we are really in earnest in our fight for a better world and a more sincere democracy, if we are fighting for a standard based on such principles, let us do everything we possibly can to uphold these ideals.
I do not believe there is a widespread desire for the opening of music-halls and theatres on Sunday. With the permission of the House I will read a short extract from one of the letters which I have received from my constituents. The writer is employed by the London Passenger Transport Board, and he says that he has noticed in the past that the people who are so anxious for Sunday amusements are mostly the people of leisure who have never been called upon to work on Sunday,
like we transport workers, who value a Sunday off duty more than any other day of the week.
As an Army welfare officer, I have received no requests for such amusements as are contemplated in the Order, but I have received many requests for outdoor games such as cricket, tennis and football


and I have gladly given them out. I hope that they will be used as much as possible in the long summer evenings that are before us. These games will give healthy outdoor amusement; and will give no extra work to anybody. I have received no requests from the trade unions. I believe that munition workers, when they get a Sunday off—they get only one every seven weeks, I believe—do not want to rush off to a theatre or music-hall but are glad of a day's rest.
I do not understand why the Government have seen fit to put forward this proposal and whom it is expected to benefit. It is in direct opposition to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who rightly continues to urge us to save our money and to lend it to the Government. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to give us a free vote on this matter. I hope that they will be able to go a step further and to withdraw this Order. If they do not, I can only say that I and many of my hon. Friends will follow the hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. Magnay) into the Lobby in favour of the Prayer and in favour of his efforts to uphold and preserve our traditions of Christian principles for our country. Hitler is failing to break those traditions; do not let us, by any action of ours now, help him in his efforts.
In conclusion, I should like to read to the House an extract from the "Theatre Managers' Journal." It states:
If these adverse criticisms are carefully studied it will be realised by the fair-minded, that they emanate, mostly, from persons whose clear judgment is clouded by religious zeal—in other words, fanatics; or by those who, without thought, repeat the shibboleths of a bye-gone age.
If that is how these people describe the traditions of our country, and if this is their policy, I am glad to have an opportunity of registering my vote against it.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: This is the first time since the outbreak of war that I have ventured to address the House. I ask the House to reject the Prayer, and I do so not from any lack of religious scruples. Indeed, I was brought up as a Plymouth Brother, but if I seek the same goal through some other door than that marked "Strictly Private," it does not make me any less a Christian. I am equally sincere with the

hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), who made a very sincere and moving speech which showed his deep feeling in this matter. Other hon. Members can claim to be as good Christians as he and are equally sincere in all that we say and do in these days. My hon. Friend made one or two mistakes in his speech. He said that there was no unanimity among actors. I have had many letters from actors and actresses and others engaged in the theatrical profession, but not one asking that this change should not take place. I was not quite clear as to what analogy the hon. Member wished to draw when he talked about an increase in juvenile crime, when no theatres are open and when his Sunday schools could certainly take the children off the streets and give them some discipline and training, of which they stand in need.
I would like the House to look at this matter in its proper perspective. It is permissive legislation, and even if the Prayer is rejected and if the Order in Council is approved, which I think it will be, it does not necessarily follow that one single theatre will open. It is purely a matter of local option, and if the theatres do open, it is not necessary for people to go to them if they do not want to. All that this Order allows is complete freedom, and for what else are we fighting but complete freedom? If I ask the hon. Member for Gateshead to accompany me to hear some Shakespeare on a Sunday afternoon, he is free to refuse. If he asks me to hear him preach, I am free to refuse. It is a blessed thing, this freedom. We do not want any sort of dictatorship, not even a sacerdotal dictatorship. The hon. Member for Gateshead made play about people being coerced, but he is trying in every possible way to coerce us. There is a definite demand and a necessity for this Sunday entertainment, and I speak with the assurance born of experience. Most of last winter I was in a small country town with about 1,300 or 1,400 men, most of them straight from the streets on the call-up. I am not sure, but there may have been two public houses, although I think there was only one. There were no cinemas open, and on Sunday afternoons there was nowhere whatever for these fellows to sit down except in the barrack rooms or in the N.A.A.F.I., or, in some cases, in homes


which were opened to them by kind Christian folk, for which I, as a commanding officer, was deeply thankful. But that was not enough. There was nowhere for them to take their wives or sweethearts. It was a cold winter, as we all remember. Yet, in spite of this, these men emulated their ancestors, of whom Sir John Moore wrote in his despatches from Corunna, that they, the Artillery, were a particularly well-behaved body of men. I have no doubt the same can be said of other regiments.
There is a decided need for recreation. I cannot speak for the Government. I know they have made their inquiries, and I too have made inquiries. This Order-in-Council has been decided upon in the interests of those who cannot at the present time get recreation, such as war workers and men in the Fighting Services. The air raids have, to a large extent, stopped evening performances of the theatres; people who are working in the day-time cannot attend matinees, and so a great many of them have been completely cut off from their normal form of amusement. I cannot help feeling that a lot of the opposition to this Order has been organised by those who would like to see all theatres and music halls closed at all times. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Gateshead, and he was extremely scathing on art and music. He may not like either; I do not like everything that goes on, but the impression that I got was that he would not like them to go on at all.

Mr. Magnay: It is within the memory of the House that I said that I was a lover of art and music, but that the declension shown in what transpires to-day and goes under the name of music is quite a different matter.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: There, I am with my hon. Friend the whole way. I dislike this declension as much as anybody else. All the national papers, as my hon. Friend pointed out, have supported this move with the exception of one, which represents the public houses, which, it strikes me, are naturally hostile because they fear competition. There is no question of competing with religion at all. There is no interference with divine service. I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 20th February,

when he announced this matter, whether he would recommend that the times of such amusements should not clash with the morning church services, and the answer he gave me was:
No doubt the local authorities will keep that in mind. I will take it into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th February, 1941; col. 291, Vol. 369.]
So there is no intention to do that. I have noticed the great solicitude for the actors shown by people who say that the actors need their day of rest. They will have their day of rest. At the present moment they do not get their day of rest on Sunday, as anybody connected with the profession knows perfectly well. Arrangements have been made for a day of rest for them in the normal way. These travelling companies of actors have to travel on Sunday in bad trains. I address myself in particular to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who made this point about travelling on Sundays. They travel when all conceivable travelling facilities are lacking, and the hardest work has to be done on that day—properties and scenery have to be moved at the stations, taken to the theatre, and the scenery very often set up that very evening. Many of these actors and actresses arrive late and tired, and have to seek rooms in the black-out. They would be thankful to have their day of rest, as it were, when they move from one town to another, on some other day than Sunday, when travelling facilities are normal. Not only would they be thankful, but those who are responsible for their transport would be extremely thankful too.
It is argued that this will be prejudicial to spiritual issues. Which is worse—to see a vulgar cinema show, to see Shakespeare, or to listen to an opera? What I say is this:
Satan finds some mischief still For idle hands to do,
and I have had experience of that in welfare work that I was doing in an attempt to better the lot of the sailor in strange ports. There we found that the best way to combat vice was to offer an alternative to vice, and it is that that we seek to do at the present moment. Not that I think there is much vice at the present moment. I have noticed no spiritual decline among the soldiers under my command; in fact, I have been very


pleasantly surprised by the numbers of men who have asked for religious instruction—quite a large and appreciable number. At the same time, they have all said that they would welcome a show on Sunday afternoons. The opposition has not been showing a very Christian spirit in argument. They have imputed the lowest possible motives wherever they could; they have been suggesting vested interests and have used such phrases as "Sordid gain," and "Who gets the rake-off?" to quote the hon. Member for Gateshead.

Mr. Magnay: Can you answer that question?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I have not gone into the ins and outs of what they do in Gateshead. Most of the arguments have exhibited, if not a narrow-minded prejudice, certainly an inconsistency. In one town which firmly resisted Sunday opening the mayor has asked theatrical artists to perform on Sunday in aid of the Spitfire Fund. That is not very consistent.

Mr. McKie: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question? He talks about inconsistency. What about his inconsistency to his own pledge at the election?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: What pledge?

Mr. McKie: The pledge that I have here, regarding opening on Sundays.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: May I have it? I will now read it out to the House:
Most decidedly yes, unless there is an overwhelming public demand for it.

Viscountess Astor: Where is the demand?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I have had the demand. That was the pledge I gave to my electors from many platforms. I made no definite pledge about anything, but said that I would do my best, as circumstances arose, when they arose. I have a perfectly clear conscience about that.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is it not the case that the question and answer were directed to normal peacetime conditions, and had no regard at all to the abnormal conditions pertaining to war-time?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: That is quite right. The opposition do not mind using Sunday transport, drinking Sunday milk, accepting Sunday domestic service or Sunday electricity or gas, or reading on Monday morning the newspapers printed on Sunday—and being very critical if the reporters have not taken down the sermons correctly.

Mr. Magnay: Such a well-trained theologian as my hon. and gallant Friend ought to know that works of necessity and mercy are always exempt.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Are the Monday morning papers a necessity or a mercy? A mercy, I suppose. Personally, I welcome the justice of giving live performances in the theatre the same rights as those enjoyed by the B.B.C. and the cinemas. I do not want more than is at present enjoyed by them. The restrictions are so many, the safeguards so thorough, that I have no hesitation whatever in asking the House to reject the Prayer.

Mr. Wedgwood: It has been suggested that the supporters of the Prayer are trying to obstruct the development of the drama. As a matter of fact, if this Prayer is rejected and Sunday opening becomes law, the theatre will not be helped in the least. It will mean the opening of the music-halls, not of the theatres. I do not believe that a single theatre in the whole of Staffordshire will open as a result of this Measure. People go to the theatre on some Sundays when the good and great, like myself, go on to a platform and make a speech for some charity; but for the ordinary theatrical performance on a Sunday—or on a week day—there is no demand at all in the provincial towns. The music-halls will be opened; and what we are considering to-day is whether it is in the interests of this country in war-time that the music-halls should be opened on Sundays. Before we decide that, there are two points we must consider; first, what is the demand, and second, what is the drawback involved?
I do not agree with the Mover of this Prayer that the drawback is the work entailed on Sundays. I think that the real drawback is that it would hurt the feelings of a great mass of people in this country who are devoted to keeping the Sabbath


holy. We may not do it ourselves, but we all know that a vast number of people in this country—particularly now, in the middle of a war which they regard almost as in the nature of a crusade—feel that maintenance of the Sabbath, not as a day of rest, but as a day of reflection, as a day of elevation, should not be seized upon by the variety profession for a better chance of making a livelihood. That is one thing. We have to remember that ours is still a Bible-reading people and therefore there are a lot of people who, if we pass this Measure to-day will be greatly shocked and whose enthusiasm behind the Government will be injured. On the other side, we have to consider the demand for this change. None of the speeches or arguments that I have heard shows at present any demand for the opening of the music-halls on Sunday. Much the best thermometer of any demand is opinion among Members of Parliament themselves. If there were a demand for this, we would get letters from our constituents pointing out that it was the greatest injustice that music-halls did not open. I doubt whether half-a-dozen Members of this House have had anything in the nature of a mail in favour of this proposal and I doubt whether half-a-dozen have not had a large mail against it.
I ask the Home Secretary when he replies to the Debate to tell us from where the demand comes. I thought when the Debate opened such demand would probably come from welfare officers, but the only welfare officer who has spoken in the Debate to-day has said that he has had no demand at all during his time on that job. Then where does the demand arise? I have seen a great deal of the soldiers of to-day. They are quite different from the old type. I have seen men from all over the country; I have asked them about their amusements, their training, whether there were dances to which they could go and whether picture-houses were open and what books they read and whether they had a chance of improving their minds. They all talked to me quite openly, and as far as variety shows were concerned they had had—those who had been at the front—enough of them in France. They said that throughout France they were given shows which were paid for by the Government, and really they had had enough of what they called "leg dis-

plays." Soldiers to-day are very different from the old type. Whether they had had enough of it in France or not, when they got back to England they really did not need the sexual excitement that was to be got from variety shows.

Mr. Messer: Then they will not go to them.

Mr. Wedgwood: No, they will not go to them, and the thing will be a flop in any case. But I want to know who demands it.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: They get it at the Sunday cinema.

Mr. Wedgwood: I am coming to that point. The cinemas are open. The Army consists now not solely of recluses in a monastic establishment. You have now none of the difficulties you had when the Army was in France. There is quite enough family life and affection for men in the Army to-day. Men and girls in uniform are much better satisfied to go to the cinema than to go to a vulgar music hall performance. It is difficult for a girl to refuse if a man says he will take her to a variety show. She probably does not like the doubtful jokes and is perhaps a bit ashamed of the "leg display," but she dare not say so, and she goes. Exactly the same happens in the case of the man who does not want to go either. He would much rather go to the cinema, but he wants to show that he is a man, and is doing the right thing, and, therefore, he offers to take the girl to the variety show. Both would infinitely prefer the dusk and sentiment of the cinema, where they could hold each others' hands. The glare and publicity of the music hall leaves them a little ashamed. At music halls they laugh at jokes which they probably think afterwards they ought not to have laughed at. The demand to-day is not for the music hall. It is for opportunities of meeting a nice girl and of preparing for a happy married life. It may be sentiment to say so, but I am perfectly certain that to-day you find a far larger amount of happiness in the Army than there was in France because so many men have picked up nice girls and have a sympathy which the ordinary soldier at war never gets. That applies to the girls, too; they are having a thundering good time.
We have smashed up endless businesses, have thrown people out of work all over the country in order to restrict useless work and to stop people wasting money. We have been preaching all over the country "Do not spend but save." We have brought in a Purchase Tax to prevent people from buying goods. We have ruined people in countless trades. We have thrown them out hoping that they would be picked up by munition factories. Why are we leaving out of this drastic restriction of spending, this coercion into munitions, just the one trade which tends to benefit by the particular Regulation which we are debating to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Time."] Yes, it is time I stopped. The music-hall profession, dog-racing people and tipsters—their jobs are preserved. They can go on enabling people to waste their money. They will not be drafted into war industries. But we here represent a far larger number of people who are making sacrifices and I hope we shall, to-day, show that there are still people in this country determined to help soldiers and workers in munitions factories not to go to music-halls, but to win the war by a better determination. Let us take the war seriously, let us see that money is saved and that men and women, whether they be in the acting profession or in any other profession, are henceforward employed in making munitions and goods for the export trade.

Mr. A. P. Herbert: We have all, I am sure, admired the sincerity and eloquence, though not always the Christianity, of the speeches that have supported this Prayer. I admire their dexterity the more, in that at least three hon. Members who have spoken have committed themselves to two incompatible propositions, first, that nobody wants Sunday facilities and that when they are granted nobody really uses them; and secondly, that if there are Sunday facilities the Christian Church will be brought down in ruins and the Sunday school will come to an end. It is related that the late Lord Melbourne, after having attended a sermon about profane swearing, returned to lunch and said:
I yield to no one in my admiration for the Church of England, but things have come to a pretty pass if religion is going to invade the sphere of our private lives.
That quotation is perhaps a gift to the other side. But I must confess that I

have not been moved by any of these eloquent and sincere speeches to believe that on my rare Sundays off I may not allow myself, if the local authority decides that I may, to go to a play by Shakespeare or even to a music hall. [Interruption.] I have so much admiration for the brave work which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has been doing in her constituency that I hope she will not provoke me into making a sharp reply to her. I think it is right to tell the House, especially after the importance attached by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to letters and "mail," that I have the honour—and if anyone says that the honour is undeserved I shall not argue very hotly—to represent more clergymen of the Church of England than any other Member of the House. Of my constituents, I reckon that about 25 per cent. are clergymen. I may be regarded now as a lost soul, I am not often at home, postage is very expensive, and the price of protest is high, but owing to special circumstances I have been at home during the last few days, and I have not received a single protest against this Prayer from a single clergyman of the Church of England. I do not want to press that argument too far, but I think it is worth mentioning, because it seems to me that much of the opposition outside—I do not speak of the very sincere speeches we have heard to-day—is what I may call a sort of professional opposition from societies which exist to oppose, and, to use that horrible and almost meaningless phrase, have a "vested interest" in opposing this sort of thing, and which very soon will be out of business.
That leads me to my main point. I do not know whether hon. Members have read a famous book by an American writer, Captain Joseph Slocum entitled, "Sailing Around the World." Having sailed three quarters round the world, he arrived in South Africa where President Kruger was still ruling. President Kruger, up to the day of his death, insisted that the earth was flat, and even when confronted with a man who had just sailed round the world, he insisted on that opinion. With great respect, that seems to me to be the situation here. When anybody talks about bringing down


the English Sunday in ruins and so on, he should remember that the kind of Sunday he is talking about rightly or wrongly no longer exists. You are not merely shutting the door after the horse has gone, but when it is far away up the road.
Let me justify that statement. There are two main points always in this controversy. First of all, there are the interests of those who may be required to serve on Sundays, the actors and actresses and so forth. So long as I understood they were against the proposal I made no move in favour of it, but I understand that on the whole they are for it. Secondly, there are the interests of those who are going to be served, and that is the general interest. On that, I would point out that we are at war, and, whatever anyone may say, soldiers and sailors and Civil Defence workers cannot take their leave when they wish, and therefore cannot always put in their theatrical time, so to speak, during the week. I was told by an hon. Member just now of a unit which carefully puts its men off on Saturdays so that they can go to the theatre, and makes them work on Sunday.
Supposing a soldier or sailor does take his leave on Sundays, there are a great many recreations open to him. First of all, the pubs are open. Secondly, there are what are called the perils of the streets; and if my hon. Friend had ever spent a fortnight in a barge with a barrage balloon, even he might not be so careful about the company he kept on the following Sunday. Thirdly, a man can go to the cinema and see the enlightened and instructive—we must say no more, in view of what the United States are doing just now—film displays of Hollywood. Fourthly, if the man stays at home, or if he goes to the house of a friend, and there is an efficient wireless, he can enjoy the entertainments put over by the British Broadcasting Corporation. And this is important. Let us look at what happened last Sunday—[Interruption]— forgetting the unfortunate episode to which my hon. Friends refer. According to the "Radio Times," there were no fewer than seven theatrical entertainments put forward by the B.B.C. last Sunday. The entertainments, which were performed by professional actors, would be unlawful in the theatre outside. At

4.30 in the Home Service programme, at the time when in Victorian days the children were massing about their mothers' knees, there was a performance, with elaborate music and dialogue, of the degrading stage play called "Peter Pan." It lasted one and a quarter hours. At 9.25 there was a play by the alien writer Euripides. The position was far more serious on the Forces programme, where there were at least five such performances. At 12.30 there was "Services Variety," at 1.15 "Music Hall," and at 2.15 "Sunday Matinee," and at 6.30 something called "Hi-Gang." All these performances were given by well-known actors and actresses. At 8 o'clock an entertainment with the horrible name of "Happidrome" was given, and at 10.8 there was Bobbie Pagan at the theatre organ.
Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, on Sundays in Fleet Street and in every other big town there were hundreds of thousands of men preparing Monday's "Times" and "Express" and all the papers which my hon. Friend reads in bed on a Monday without a protest or a qualm. Let me put it in another way. Take it from the point of view of a well-known actor, like John Gielgud. On Sunday, if the B.B.C. like, he can act Hamlet or Henry V all day long. He can appear on the films as Hamlet or Henry V. He can give a long lecture on Hamlet or Henry V. He can appear—and this is remarkable—at a concert or cinema and act passages from "Henry V" so long as he does not make up, put on costume and do the job properly. In other words, I think we are trying to keep the horse in the stable long after it is far away. I do not think that this picture of a quiet, peaceful, Christian Sunday, into which we are now going to throw some new and devastating explosive, corresponds to the facts. Anyhow, if the English Sunday is worth anything, surely it does not exist in bolts and bars and prohibitions. It exists in the hearts of the people, and it will never be displaced if it is a real thing, as I think it is. That is my answer to the hon. Member when he tells me about institutions. I believe in the Church of England, and I believe in a real sense in the British Sunday. But we are at war. The bells of our churches are no longer ringing to call the people across the


valleys. The sons of the village are not there to walk with their fathers across the fields. But they will come back, or some of them will; and the bells will be heard again, but in that day I do not believe that their appeal will be any the less because of the little thing that we do for those boys to-day.

Mr. Watkins: I am glad to have an opportunity of adding a word or two in this interesting Debate, though I must confess, anxious as I was to hear any fresh argument which would justify me in voting for the Prayer, I have not heard one at all. The speech of the mover, if I may use language which I think he will appreciate, fell from grace by virtue of the fact that it consisted of a riot of over-statement and extravagance. To talk about people who desire theatrical performances on Sunday as Fifth Columnists is such excessive language that he does harm to his case by using it. In common with, I suppose, all other Members of Parliament, I have received a number of letters from constituents urging me to support the Prayer. I endeavoured as conscientiously as I could to consider the matter and not thoughtlessly to cast my vote. The letters usually asked me to read a number of Old Testament quotations, but no one suggested that I should read a New Testament quotation:
The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
My understanding of the development of the Christian religion is that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament and that we should look to the New Testament for light and guidance. One of the letters that came to me—I refer to it with the utmost respect—is from a man whom I do not know, but it no doubt embodies a sincerely held conviction. I quote his words, because I think they are typical of the minds of a number of people:
On behalf of my wife and myself, I beg you to lodge a protest against polluting our Sabbath Day by the opening of theatres on Sundays.
Note the word "polluting." That typifies to me the wrong approach to this problem. Speaking for myself—and this must be a similar experience to that of other hon. Members—I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the English stage, and

I am grateful beyond words that I can look back over my life and recapture the gladness and joy I have had from great theatrical actors. I remember walking from Hampstead, where I lived, to Notting Hill, because I could not afford the fare, in order to sit in the gallery and hear Mr. Forbes Robertson perform his "Hamlet" over 40 years ago. I remember the wonderful succession of performances in Shakespeare's plays by Beerbohm Tree at His Majesty's Theatre. I remember the rich contralto voice of Constance Collier as Cleopatra. I am glad I heard them and can remember them. Those performances were helpful to me in my intellectual life, and they would have been just as helpful if they had occurred on Sundays instead of on week nights. To talk about plays like Galsworthy's "Silver Box," Shaw's "Saint Joan," Drinkwater's "Abraham Lincoln," or even "Thunder Rock" and "Dear Brutus," which are being shown in London now, as polluting men's minds is a gross misuse of the English language.
To hear some of the critics talk about this Order one would think that it would mean that the floodgates of evil were to be opened. Of course, no such thing will occur at all. I may be reminded that not all theatrical performances are of the same high tone as those I have mentioned. I know that a good many theatres produce musical comedies or revues, with a few pretty faces, a few pretty dresses and a few wisecracks, and they are very pleasurable and enjoyable. I want to plead for the men and women who work tremendously hard for very long hours. Their work is all the harder because of the zeal with which they set about their jobs in these trying times. I want them to have the opportunity—and if it comes on Sunday, to have it on that day—to go to the theatre so that they can get out of themselves. There is nothing so effective as a good stage performance for making men and women forget their troubles, their burdens and their complexities and live a life as if it were part of the performance they are beholding. One could paraphrase the words of Wordsworth's sonnet and say, "The war is too much with us, Late and soon we spend our powers." Men and women want to get away from things and they can do that in a theatre better than anywhere else.
I have been connected all my life with the railway trade union movement. We have 500,000 railway trade unionists in this country, and every Sunday tens of thousands of them are working, but no protest comes from the Sabbatarians on that score. The same happens with regard to Sunday newspapers, busmen and all kinds of workers. It almost tempts one to believe that the Sabbatarian mind does not object to what are euphemistically called works of necessity and works of mercy, but that it objects to things happening on Sunday that bring joy and gladness into the lives of men. They have the kind of outlook that makes them confuse dreariness with religion—a fatal fault. Robert Louis Stevenson some years ago had a word to say on this which I should like to read to the House:
There is an idea abroad among moral people that they should make their neighbours good. One person I have to make good, myself; but my duty to my neighbour is much more nearly expressed by saying that I have to make him happy.
Anything that will add to the happiness of mankind ought to be encouraged. The evil that is being done in the world at any time is never done by happy people but by miserable people, introspective people. The two greatest manufacturers of evil in the world at the present time—how does one picture them? Not as laughing in a glad, happy, care-free way, but as knitting their brows, biting their finger nails and conspiring against humanity. To allow thousands of people to go into theatres on Sunday evenings for an innocent evening's enjoyment will help the war effort, will help men and women to bear their burdens bravely, and I cannot see that it will endanger the cause of religion. I confess that I believe the world is going to be redeemed by religion; but not by the Old Testament religion, that consists of stern, peremptory forbidding commands; not by "Thou shalt not." It will be saved by the religion that urges and inspires men and women to live a life of spiritual and social service for mankind. One gets hints of that religion in all the great drama of the world, and men and women ought to be permitted whenever the opportunity comes, of going to see and hear that great drama. I shall vote against the Prayer and support the Minister.

Dr. Little: I rise to support with all my heart the Prayer before the House for the annulment of this unfor-

tunate Order. I am no kill-joy. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) said the world would not be redeemed and renewed by the Old Testament. The world will be redeemed and renewed by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the Old Testament speaks, and I stand, of course, on the Old Testament. Where would we be but for the Old Testament? Thank God for it. But I want to say that the electors who have sent the representatives of Northern Ireland to this House are most determined and uncompromising in their opposition to this proposed Regulation for the opening of theatres and music-halls on Sundays, as they feel that what is being attempted in England to-day will be attempted in Ulster to-morrow, and this degradation of the Lord's Day our people in Ulster will not have at any cost. The Regulation under which theatres and music-halls may be opened on the Lord's Day with the sanction of the local authorities is to me one of the most serious and daring proposals brought before this House since I entered it. The sanctioning of such a proposal, even as a war measure, is an open defiance of God, and a distinct breach of divine law. Do not let us forget the Old Testament. This is a direct challenge to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and to the claim that the Church of Christ should have one day in seven on which to try to bring redemption to our people. Theatres and music-halls have a run of six days; surely it is not too much to ask hon. Members to give God his unchallenged right to one day in seven.
Instead of impeding and hindering the work of the Church, let us give an opportunity to men and women to turn their thoughts to God and to the Church to bring them into touch with the unseen and eternal on the Lord's Day. Man, as has often been said, does not live by bread alone. Thank God we are a Christian country. What man needs above all else is to be fed with the Bread of God from Heaven. Soldier and civilian alike need that replenishment of soul and uplift of spirit which can only be had by waiting upon God, through the means of grace appointed by Himself. Theatres and music-halls cannot accomplish this essential thing. There is a depth in man that such external things cannot touch. It is the deep things that are important,


and that are the province of the Church, and any Government or authority which attempts to interfere with the sanctity of Sunday is depriving the people of our land of the things which they most need, Christian salvation and Christian culture—soul culture. Surely we should hesitate, as the greatest legislative Assembly in the world—thank God for that—before taking such a hurtful step for our fellow-men.
I read and expound the Old Testament, and I thank God for the Old Testament. As we read it, we must be struck by the emphasis that God lays on the strict observance of the Sabbath, and how His judgments, time and again, came upon Israel when that nation disregarded his holy day. Here is what God said through the Prophet Ezekiel:
I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord … and My Sabbaths they greatly polluted; then, I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness to consume them.
The strict observance of the Sabbath was the sign that cut them off from the ungodly nations around them. Then, again, pronouncing His blessing upon those who kept the Sabbath, God speaking through the Prophet Isaiah promised to all such "an everlasting name." Then, as to His worship, there was no option left:
From one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord.
In the New Testament, to which an hon. Member opposite referred, our Blessed Lord was shown to be a strict observer of the Sabbath. He attended the synagogue regularly on that day. I do not accept the exegesis from the hon. Member opposite who told us that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. The purpose of the Sabbath was for man's rest, refreshment, spiritual health and bodily recuperation. Do the threatres and music-halls provide those? I would ask hon. Members a question. In the early Church at the time it was making its greatest conquests three leading Church fathers tell us how the Lord's Day was observed. Tertullian said:
The Lord's Day was the holy day of the Christian Church.

Ignatius said:
Let every friend of Christ celebrate the Lord's Day.
It was to be spent, not in fun and frolic, but in the worship of God. Justin Martyr, said:
on the Lord's Day all Christians in the city and country assemble together, because that is the day of the Lord's Resurrection.
The decline of religion and religious life has always shown itself in the neglect and desecration of the Sabbath. In the days of Queen Victoria, of blessed memory, no business of any kind was transacted upon a Sunday that could be transacted on another day of the week. To-day, to our hurt and loss, we have gone to the other extreme and anything that can well be done on a week-day must be done on a Sunday. Here is the testimony of Lord Macaulay, our great historian. I would ask hon. Members to pay attention to this:
When industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the welfare of the nation as any performed on more busy days. Man, the machine of machines, is repairing and winding up so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits and with renewed corporeal vigour.
Here is the testimony of one of England's greatest sons. Again, we have the testimony of our great Christian poet, Robert Browning:
Thou art my single day, God lends to leaven
What were all earth else, with a feel of Heaven.
You do not get that feeling of Heaven in your music-hall, cinema or theatre. George MacDonald, the great Christian author, with whose writings we are all familiar, says:
Sunday is a quiet hollow in the windy hill of the week.
So I would ask you, dear friends, to think and meditate on these things. If we want help and assistance of a friend, we must keep in that friend's good graces. So, if God is to be our help in these distressful days, we need to stand right with Him.
By order of His Majesty the King, we have had three National Days of Prayer. God's response to the first day of prayer was the mighty deliverance at Dunkirk, which will be spoken of in ages to come


as one of the greatest deliverances which ever came to Great Britain. That deliverance came through the direct intervention of God. Thank God for our heroes and for enabling them to keep up their spirits and play football between the bombing attacks. God's answer to the second prayer was the prevention of the attempt at invasion by the enemy. The enemy was driven back. Think of last week and the wonderful change in Yugoslavia, when men imagined that all there was lost to the Allied cause. Through God's intervention a whole series of victories has been granted us during the week, and all has been crowned by that wonderful naval victory against the Italians. That has come in direct answer to our third National Day of Prayer. I would say to hon. Members, not to forget that when they go into the Lobby to-day. Surely, as the Parliament of the nation, we are not going to express our thanks to God for all he has done for us by passing an Order for desecrating His day, dishonouring His name and hampering the work of HisChurch by the opening of theatres and music-halls and bars for the sale of liquor, with all its attendant evils. I would say to the Home Secretary and to the supporters of this unholy Regulation: Along that way lie hurt, harm and loss to the individual and to the nation, and we cannot hope to escape the judgment of God if we defy it.
I have noticed that at these Sunday entertainments there has been only a small number of soldiers present. I am satisfied that the demand for Sunday theatres and music-halls arises far more from a desire for gain than from any altruistic desire to entertain our soldiers. There has been a repeated demand for the opening of cinemas in Belfast on Sunday, on the plea that the military wanted such opening, but no soldier has ever said to me that he wanted to attend any such show. The people of Northern Ireland treat the soldiers with every kindness, and the men themselves would seem to prefer a quiet Sunday evening in a home or hall, in Christian surroundings, to any show or entertainment. I want to say to you in this House that these brave men, whom we honour and welcome and for whose presence we thank God, are largely your own sons from this country. I ask hon. Members of this House to be warned in time, and to do nothing to displease God

when we need His help so much. Your vote given to-day against this Regulation for the Sunday opening of theatres and music-halls would be well pleasing to God, and in thus honouring Him, we can be sure that he will stand by us, and lead us forward to certain victory. Stand by God and He will stand by you.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The last speaker has shown himself a great zealot, but when in a free vote of the House he threatens one side with God's curse and promises the other side God's blessing, I think that as God's agent, he goes too far. If I had come here with an open mind, prepared to be influenced by the course of the Debate—which would be an ideal condition in Parliament—the speeches for this Prayer would have driven me into the Lobby against it. It seems to me that we arc going back almost to the Dark Ages, back to the Puritanism which killed the arts, which suppressed the spirit, and which, although I agree it did much to produce a high character, in the end produced the Revolution.

Viscountess Astor: And founded America.

Mr. Baxter: I would say, having listened to the speeches given in favour of this Prayer—and I recognise at once that every speech has been absolutely sincere—that the cinema industry, which I once knew very well, could have found no better advocates for its monopoly of Sunday entertainment. The brewers could have found no better advocates, and I understand that the Noble Lady is ready to speak on behalf of the monopoly of the brewers. Here, there is no comparison between going in to see a play and going into the public-house. The Noble Lady wants to keep the theatre closed.

Viscountess Astor: How do you know?

Mr. Baxter: The point I want to put is this. Each one of us in this House has received many letters, and I think they have all been on one side, namely, protesting against the opening of theatres on Sunday. From a strictly constituency standpoint, it would be easier to vote for this Prayer than against it. But we must speak and vote according to our consciences to-day, and, if the House will forgive me, I want to speak very personally. I, with many other thousands and tens


of thousands of Canadians, came to this country for the first time during the last war. I came here, like them, boasting of knowing my England more from Dickens than from the history books. We had had tours by such actors as Forbes Robertson—and I appreciated very much the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite about the theatre—and Ellen Terry. England was our home, the centre of Empire, the inspiration of all that we held most dear, although our families perhaps had not seen it for generations. When I came on leave to London, not knowng a soul in London, not having a friend to come with me, I came rejoicing in the companionship of Mr. Pecksniff, Tom Pinch and all the characters that come from the stage and from literature. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And Mark Tapley."] Yes, Mark Tapley; he was there, as always.
Shortly after this war started, I went on a Saturday afternoon to see Wilde's play "The Importance of being Earnest." While I was buying a ticket, I heard a familiar accent. At first I thought it was Lord Beaverbrook, but I found that it was two Canadian soldiers. I was rather surprised that they had selected this highly stylised comedy of Wilde's. I said, "What brings you here?" These boys, who were from the prairies, said, "We thought that we would like to see an English play, with English actors." Somewhat doubtfully, I played host to them, and bought them their tickets. Half-way through the play, I went to them, and said, "How do you like it?" They said, "This is one of the great treats of our lives." They were listening to superb English dialogue, spoken by superb English voices. I am on the Canadian Red Cross Committee. One of our biggest problems is that of dealing with the thousands of Canadian boys who come to London on leave at the weekends. Our opponents say that these boys may go to a cinema to see Clark Gable in a gangster film, but that they must not go to a theatre to see John Gielgud in "Julius Caesar," which is the best gangster play ever written. The American voice now falls very gratefully on our ears. I think our favourite tune should be "Hail, Columbia," for we owe much to the Americans. But it is downright hypocrisy and humbug to say, "You can have your Clark Gable; you must not

have your Gielgud. You can have your Joan Crawford, but not you Lilian Braithwaite."

Commander Locker-Lampson: Clark Gable does not appear in person.

Mr. Baxter: There is some point in that which I leave to the brilliant brain of my hon. and gallant Friend to explain. You can hear a discordant voice from a picture, but you must not gaze on the speaker himself. I will grant that point. We have handed over the screen of this country to Hollywood, partly because Hollywood makes such good films, and partly because of the blunderings of successive Presidents of the Board of Trade. But I make this plea for the many Empire soldiers here. Let them hear the English language, let them see English plays; and do not let us persist in hypocrisy such as Mr. Pecksniff himself could not have exceeded.

Mr. Owen Evans: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) with great attention. I can assure him that I, at any rate, am not going to take my definition of humbug and hypocrisy from him. I understood him to complain about certain speeches which had preceded his, either for or against this Prayer. I think he ought to have had the gentlemanliness to say, at any rate, that some of us who hold strong views on this matter do hold them sincerely.

Mr. Baxter: I said that they showed sincerity of spirit and hypocrisy of logic.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member forgot evidently what he said in the earlier part of his speech, and he characterises, as I understood him, the opponents of this Order and the supporters of the Prayer as being hypocrites and humbugs. I am not going to take it from him, of all people.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of Order. I have been personally attacked. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that he will not take this from me, of all people, which seems to imply a direct charge from which I ask you, Sir, to protect me, or that the hon. Member should withdraw.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that I did not hear exactly what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman opposite said that he would not accept a charge of hypocrisy from me of all people, thereby implying something which he is not ready to develop to its utmost extent. If he will, I shall be very glad; otherwise I think he ought to withdraw.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may have meant it as a compliment and not otherwise.

Mr. Evans: I have said what I have to say, and I withdraw nothing. I only want to say a few words from a standpoint which has not been mentioned in this Debate before, and that is the standpoint of a country, a constituency of which I have the honour to represent, namely, the Principality of Wales. The hon. Member who spoke from Ulster said with great pride that this Order does not apply to his part of the country, but nevertheless he took a quarter-of-an-hour to speak on this subject in this House. He is fortunate; we in Wales are not so fortunate. This Order is imposed upon us without our consent, and whatever hon. Members may say from English constituencies and the University of Oxford, there is no demand for this Order in Wales. In fact, there is a profound, deep-seated, widespread hostility to anything of the kind. There can be no doubt about that in Wales, and that point of view is understood to have the respect and consideration of this House. Why is it that Scotland and Ulster, and Scotland particularly, remain untouched by this Order? Why is it that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland does not introduce an Order of this kind giving facilities for the opening of cinemas and theatres in Scotland? The answer is, because they dare not, or, in a more modest way, because there is no demand for it in Scotland. They have satisfied themselves apparently that there is no clear demand for such an Order in Scotland. I wonder whether Scotland is any the worse for that. Is Scotland not playing a great part in the building-up of the character of the Dominions, including Canada? Has it not, by its Puritan training, built up the character of most notable sons of Canada who have come from Scotland? It has been stimulated and invigorated in character by the Puritan feeling in Scotland. If there is no demand for this in Scotland, there is still less demand in Wales.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that it is a matter for the local authorities in Scotland and that there are queues almost half-a-mile long for the picture houses in Glasgow every Sunday night?

Mr. Evans: I was about to deal with that point, which is certain to be put by the Home Secretary against the argument that it rests entirely with the decision of the local authority. The term "local option" has been used in the course of this Debate, but there is no such thing in this Order as local option in the true sense of the word. What we understand by local option is that there should be a plebiscite by the people themselves, but there is no such option here at all. It is not necessary to tell me that Welsh Members ought not to complain because this Order gives Welsh people power to decide for themselves. We are not given such power. No local elections have been held, and are not likely to be held for a long time to come.
Already Wales has been treated differently from England, not on political grounds but on moral, spiritual and cultural grounds. There was the special Intermediate Education Act because of the thirst in Wales for the general education of the mass of the people and the Act for the establishment of the Church in Wales, which has done a great deal of good for the Church in Wales in that it has brought it closer to the national life of our country. The recognition of the strong feeling for religious equality and freedom goes much beyond mere religious toleration. The Sunday closing of licensed houses in Wales proves the conviction of the Welsh people that trading in alcoholic liquor on the Lord's Day is an affront to Christian religion. So I say that the Home Secretary ought to give special consideration to Wales in this matter.
We are all in favour of giving joy and gladness, in the true sense of the word, to our troops and to those engaged in munitions. One hon. Member said that we were against giving joy and gladness to the people. That is untrue. I can take him to my constituency, where there are now hundreds of thousands of troops for the first time, and show him the voluntary and genuine efforts which people there are making in order to give joy and gladness to the soldiers. They


are doing it by means of all sorts of lectures, culture and music on Sundays and on evenings during the week. On these grounds I ask the Home Secretary to have due regard to the arguments which have been put against this Prayer. I do not profess to be what is called a reforming saint, but with the calls to worship seeming to get fewer, I believe that no greater calamity can befall a nation than to lose opportunities of freedom to worship.

Mr. Profumo: If I rise to say a few words about this Prayer, it is because I wish to speak as a young man typical of hundreds of thousands of my kind. Like all other hon. Members, I have had many letters from constituents, all of them urging me to support this Prayer. Those were organised letters, every one of them was organised; and I have taken the trouble to go round the ordinary men who are serving with me in the Forces to find out what is their opinion on the matter. To one man, they are in favour of allowing men and women, if they wish to do so, to pass part of their Sundays by the normal amusement of looking at a music-hall or theatre.
With all respect to hon. Members who have spoken, I think both sides of the case have been put rather too strongly. If I felt that by prohibiting men and women from going to theatres and music-halls on Sunday we could induce a small section of the public to be more religious-minded, I would have walked from my Army station in order to support this Prayer. But I believe that rather the opposite is true. Hundreds of thousands of young men and young women in this country to-day, alas, have no faith, or very little faith. It is because they have felt, in the hurly-burly of the modern world, that there is no place for religion, which they feel to be austere and cold. Surely, that is untrue. Religion in its very meaning is the word "love," spreading a little happiness in corners of the world that want happiness. If ever a better hallmark existed, surely it is the Cross—myself crossed out. That is what really matters—not how many times you put on a top hat and go to church, not whether you happen to listen to Gracie Fields or Flanagan and Allen on Sunday afternoon. I do not believe that the

ordinary Army soldier who, grievously wounded at the front, gives his water-bottle to his pal is any less Christian because of the fact that he happened to go to a music-hall or watch what one hon. Member called a "leg-show" the Sunday before. Surely, that is the real meaning of Christianity. You may lead a man to church, but you cannot force him to believe, except by the outliving of your life and the example you set. I do not believe the Church will put forward the fact that if you open theatres and music halls you will lessen the pull that religion has. That would be rather the same as saying, "Cut off the Forces programme, or no one will listen to the Home Service."
That is all I wish to say, except to refer to the speech of the hon. Member opposite who spoke so delightfully and quoted from our Lord's own words in the New Testament, when He said that man is not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. That was on the occasion when He was healing on a Sunday, working in a church, and hypocrites, as always, tried to question what he was doing. When a man like Mr. Vic Oliver happens to be able to give a performance that enables thousands and thousands of people to carry on smiling through the sweat of the following week, is he not doing good? Is not that a Christian act, even if he is paid? Therefore, at this particular moment let us not, through smug piety, fail to reject the Prayer. Otherwise, I really believe we shall be April fools.

Mr. James Griffiths: In Debates of this kind there is always the danger, because feelings are passionately aroused, of ending up by calling each other humbugs and words of that description. I think it will be far better if, without quarrelling, we all approach this matter as people honestly trying to arrive at what we think best. In these days, all of us in the House are actuated by one over-riding motive, and that is the desire to win this war, and to win it as quickly as we possibly can. I should like to warn hon. Members that there is a danger that this necessity for winning the war may be exploited by persons for their own private enterprise. I will be perfectly frank; I believe there is something of that in this agitation which is now going on. I approach this matter


from a rather different aspect from that expressed very sincerely by those who, up to now, have supported the Prayer. I accept the text used by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), in a speech which delighted us all, that the Sabbath was made for man. That is a text which I wish to apply to this new Order and every other Order which destroys Sunday as a day of rest.
I believe that there was never a time in the history of this country or the world when the setting aside of a day, a day which we deliberately make different from others, was more necessary. We are living under the storms and stresses of war, but even before the war, and after the war is ended, we were and shall be living in the midst of a machine world where the strains and stresses are tremendous. It has become essential, on physical as well as moral grounds, that we should set aside this one day and make it a quiet day of relaxation. I have been striving and fighting for this all the way through. I would take the liberty of speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the trade union movement, and the pioneers who have spent generations in trying to stop Sunday work. We have tried to stop Sunday working by all kinds of protective regulations. We have sought to make Sunday working unprofitable. Why do we ask for double-time on Sundays, and put on restrictions, and struggle and fight against it? It is because we believe that one day ought to be set aside for the workman, and that he is entitled to that complete rest from work. It is not so much that this Order in itself is so vital, but it is the whole tendency. When one begins to accept these things, there is no stopping—we are making Sunday just another ordinary day. It is a problem we cannot face at the present moment because of the exigencies of war, but we shall have to face up to it after the war.
In every industry, including the one with which I have been associated, the machine is coming in. I have had the argument put to me that if production is to be maintained, you must keep the cycle of mechanical processes seven days a week and tie the man down to the machine. I say to my fellow-workmen, with some knowledge of the development of industry, that one of these days the workers will have to choose between

making it a five-day week and see the Sunday go completely in the interests of the machine. I know that the Sabbath was made for man, I want to keep it for man and not surrender it to the machine. If it went, I believe something of great value to the nation would be lost. Nations in Europe have collapsed for all kinds of curious reasons. There is something of value to the nation in keeping this quiet day. It is something of priceless value to the workers.
We are told that there is a demand for these facilities from those serving in the Armed Forces. I, like every other Member, receive dozens or scores of letters. Every day there are letters in the post from members of the Armed Forces about all kinds of problems, but I have not had a single letter from a soldier on this, and I have not met a colleague who has. They write to us familiarly. If they regarded this as a burning issue, they would not hesitate to write about it. This demand, as far as I know, has not come from our brothers who are serving in the Armed Forces. I do not take second place to anyone in my love for English literature and the English theatre. What has happened to the English theatre? Who has killed it? It is not the Puritans. It is not I and my colleagues. It is the profiteers who have killed it. I want to sustain the living theatre; I want to give its actors, actresses and artistes a place in our life. It will not be sustained unless the nation makes the living theatre a part of its national system of education. But supposing we open the theatres on Sundays, how many soldiers will get a chance to go to them? In South Wales there is only one theatre left. All the rest have been killed by the vested interests, who do not care a bit about Shakespeare. There are not five per cent. of the men in the Armed Forces who are within reach of a theatre.
We are all concerned about the welfare and entertainment of these men. They are scattered all over the country in remote rural areas, and all kinds of people are providing for their welfare and entertainment and are looking after them. In remote parts of Wales the care and entertainment of these men are now being organised. People in religious institutions are doing everything they can to care for their welfare and entertainment, whereas the opening of the theatres will not touch


the fringe of the problem. Suppose the theatres are open on Sunday, how many of the men will be able to afford the money to go to them? Will those who are very enthusiastic for the opening of Sunday theatres accept the implication that they must give enough money to the men to enjoy the facility? It is not possible for a very large number of the men to enjoy the theatres because they cannot afford it. We all want to see these men cared for, we want to see them entertained, and we want to give them the best in every way. If I were satisfied that behind this Order were a desire to provide this kind of entertainment for the men in the Forces and that nothing else was behind it I might be persuaded in its favour. I will make one quotation from the large number of pamphlets and letters that have been sent to me. It is from the "Theatrical Managers' Journal," and I want to quote it because I think that it indicates that behind it is the desire for gain. They say:
Naturally theatrical proprietors hope that Sunday performances will pay; otherwise they will not give them.
If the giving of performances on Sunday in theatres depends on whether they are a commercial success or not, how can it be claimed that they are needed for the welfare of the men in the Forces?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman make his political speeches on Sundays with a view to gaining votes?

Mr. Griffiths: What I am saying is that a good deal has been said about there being behind this Order the desire to seek the welfare of the men in the Forces. Against that, I am entitled to quote the theatrical managers, who say that unless Sunday theatres pay they will close them down. I would like to say a word in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans), who put the special point of view of Wales. There is a good deal of feeling that Whitehall treats Wales as a county and not as a nation, with a culture, language and institutions of its own which ought to be recognised, and I urge the Home Secretary to give consideration to that problem. There is not a single request that I know of for this Order from anybody in Wales. There is, on the other hand, deep hostility to it, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that fact. I shall go into the Lobby for this Prayer because I think that it is

in the best interests of this nation, in the best interests of the people whom I immediately represent, and in the interests of all of us to maintain a day which is set aside for quiet and reflection and is made deliberately different from other days.

Viscountess Astor: It has gone already.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member says that it has gone already. I believe we have to recover it, if not for any narrow Puritan reasons. I have heard in this Debate many references to the Nonconformist conscience, and no doubt there was a great deal that was very narrow in it, but may we not be getting towards a world without a conscience at all? I would far rather we should go back to the Nonconformist conscience than to a world without a conscience. I believe it is in the best interests of this nation and of the workpeople of this nation to keep Sunday a day of rest, a day of reflection, and to refuse to commercialise it, and that is why I shall go into the Lobby for the Prayer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I should like to express to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) my appreciation of his action in agreeing that I might follow rather than precede him. I was anxious to speak as late as possible in the Debate, in order that I might have the advantage of hearing all points of view, including the important point of view represented by my hon. Friend. I think we have all listened with great interest to this Debate, which has been a good Debate. My hon. Friend has put the point of view of the religious-minded and thinking workmen of Wales with very great competence and with great sincerity, and I would say nothing in any way disrespectful of what he has said. I particularly agree that we must all be on our guard against the changes or modifications, even the relaxations, of war-time being exaggerated—taken farther than they should because of war conditions. We ought not to permit the war to be used as a light and easy excuse to upset the general conceptions, the moral codes or the religious feelings of the community. I do not argue this case from that point of view, and I think my hon. Friend will concede that I would not permit myself to be intimidated by interests outside. Moreover, I share


with him a feeling that the Nonconformist conscience, as it was called, criticised and denounced in many quarters as it was, was one of the elements of the British character, and I think that the country, politically as well as in a religious sense, may have lost something by the relative weakening of Nonconformity and, indeed, by the weakening of the Established Church in many parts of the country.
While these things happen, while the people's attitude towards religion changes and there is a growing feeling that the individual has a right to think for himself, nevertheless I would join with my hon. Friend in saying that if the Established Church or the Nonconformist Churches are weakening in their hold over the people, it is, to say the least, desirable that we should all try to see that the vacancy created shall be filled by something that is not less worthy of the ideals and the conceptions which were associated with those Churches. Therefore, it is desirable in this discussion, if we take the view, as I do personally,—I may be right or wrong, because it is very difficult to be certain about these matters—that the violent and strong opposition to this Regulation comes not from a majority but from a minority in this country, that we should not argue that merely because it is a minorityx2014;if it be so—it should necessarily be disregarded by this House. We must consider the quality of minorities as well as their number. We must also consider the quality of majorities as well as their number. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the assurance that I give as Home Secretary that neither I nor my colleagues in the Government, who have made this decision collectively, have taken the decision lightly or with any feeling of contempt or indifference towards the deep and sincere conscientious convictions, not only of people of religious mind, but of people who are not altogether orthodox in religion, but many of whom have similar feelings to those which have been expressed in the Debate by the supporters of the Prayer.
It has been argued that hon. Members gave undertakings during the last General Election that they would oppose Sunday entertainments. Perhaps I may be permitted to say something about election pledges. As for the filling-up of

questionnaires and so on, I do not do it, and I do not propose to do it. I am not sure that a candidate for Parliament who signs on the dotted line, in the absence of knowledge of the circumstances which will have to be faced when he may have to vote upon the subjects in question in the House of Commons, and who thus commits himself to detail and definitely, is worthy of being a candidate for Membership of this great Assembly.

Mr. McGovern: What about the Standing Orders of the Labour party?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman's voice is not exactly a whisper, and I note that, as usual, he has had his customary humorous response from some quarters of the House; but I cannot see the relevance of his interruption.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is not the Minister aware that the Standing Orders of the Labour party do not matter very much when they expel some people from the organisation?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot see the relevance of that interruption. Rightly or wrongly, and I think wrongly, a certain number of present Members of the House gave, in 1935, when they were candidates, undertakings that they would oppose Sunday opening and the principle of Sunday entertainments. I think it is unwise for candidates for Parliament to sign these questionnaires on the dotted line and to commit themselves in detail about what they will do, in circumstances which may not have arisen and which they cannot foresee. Those promises were given in 1935, and this is 1941. They were given in the days of peace, but we are living in very different conditions to-day. Hon. Members have a perfect right to consider this Motion, not in the circumstances in which they gave their undertakings during the Election of 1935, but in the circumstances of to-day. They must think again, in the light of the conditions which obtain in war-times.

Dr. Morgan: Break your promises, like Hitler.

Mr. Morrison: I hope that hon. Members will exercise their undoubted right to think for themselves and to act for themselves as Members of Parliament.

Mr. Granville: Will all the Government do that?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks that when you join the Government you can do what you like. If he thinks that, he has a very youthful conception of government. One cannot do it. Government must be a unity. When one joins a Government one joins it on the basis that the Government acts collectively. Apart from the Government, this is a free vote, and the hon. Members who clamoured for a free vote might be more appreciative when they get it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not bound to give it, but he did. Hon. Members ought to be, as I say, more appreciative, and should not adopt the extreme doctrine that when a Government has made a defence Regulation, the Government can afterwards split up and each Member do as he likes. That is the way to chaos. Therefore, the free vote having been given, I urge upon hon. Members to exercise their individual responsibilities as Members of Parliament in circumstances that did not exist in 1935, that are materially different from those of 1935, and to give their vote according to what they think is right in the interests of the country at the present time. Whether they vote my way or the other way, that is all I ask.
I would remind the House of the conception of a Member of Parliament, which was stated by a great Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, quoted in the little book associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) which was referred to a few days ago. I prefer this doctrine to the doctrine of the man who signs away his rights on a dotted line on the eve of an election. This is what Edmund Burke said after he was elected for the city of Bristol:
To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience: these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our Constitution.

I think that is worth thinking of, in view of the arguments we have heard to the effect that Members have received from their constituents far more postcards and communications against this Regulation than they have for it. Indeed, many have received none at all. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. P. Herbert) has received none against. When Members of Parliament permit their judgment, their minds and their position to be determined by the number of postcards they receive, British democracy will be in a serious position.
The changes in this matter of Sunday entertainments have extended over a period of years. The House will remember that by a legal decision the action of certain local authorities in permitting Sunday opening of cinemas was held to be illegal. Under the Sunday Entertainment Act, 1932, which regularised the position in those areas where opening had already taken place, a local authority's decision in favour of Sunday opening in a new area could be challenged by a poll of the electors. If the poll was in favour of Sunday opening, an Order is made by the Home Secretary and is subject to the approval of both Houses. After the war broke out there was made a Regulation under which the poll was dispensed with, subject to a certificate being received from the competent military authority. This new Regulation does not sell the pass as to the principle of Sunday opening at all. Extensive opening of cinemas already exists. Further opening can be authorised on the matter being raised by the competent military authority and action being subsequently taken by the local authority, subject to the approval by Parliament of Orders made by the Secretary of State. Cinemas are open all over the country. All that the Order proposes is first to give to the competent industrial authority a right of initiative equal to that enjoyed by the competent military authority in respect of cinemas, and, secondly, to apply the Regulation to theatres and music halls.
With all the good will in the world, I cannot see that it is more wicked to permit a theatre—the living stage—to be open than a cinema. Some films are beautiful and dignified things, some of them are somewhat on the light side, and others, some people might say, are some-


what on the vulgar side. I do not criticise the cinema; I used to go myself before I was a Minister of the Crown, and I should like to go now, but I cannot. I have nothing against the cinema, but I cannot see that the legitimate stage, with living British actors and actresses, is necessarily morally inferior to the screen, with its artistes coming from all parts of the world. That is all that is being done by this Regulation, coupled with the right of the industrial authority to move the local authority to consider the matter.
Why have we brought in the competent industrial authority? The competent military authority is already in and has acted in many cases. But the competent military authority does not decide, nor will the competent industrial authority decide. The local authority is still the decisive instrument in this matter, and nobody else. If local opinion is dead against Sunday opening, as I agree it probably is in most of Wales—

Mr. Radford: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is meant by "the competent industrial authority"?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, he will be nominated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and will probably be the divisional controller, an important local officer of the Ministry of Labour, as I think the competent military authority is the General Officer Commanding in the Area.
Why are we making this change? Just as it is the case that men are moved away from their homes for military, naval or air force service, and are living in new districts away from their friends, having hours of work which are materially different from what they were before, and therefore, in our view, needing additional facilities for entertainment and enjoyment, so it is the case that there have been important changes in conditions of labour, in the location of industrial works and in other circumstances. There have been many transfers of industrial workers, hours of labour have tended to lengthen in the war factories, Sunday working in the war factories has been on the increase—and the purpose has been not to break the Sabbath but to get the maximum production out of

the plant, machinery and general organisation of the undertaking—giving the workpeople time off on another day. Industrial circumstances are vastly different from what they were before the war. Workpeople are working at some strain, they are working different hours and different shifts, many of them are working on Sundays, and many of them are away from their own home towns, families and immediate friends. It is very important that the industrial worker should be kept happy and cheerful [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland?"] I will come to that presently if the hon. Member will let me continue to be happy and cheerful meantime. [An HON. MEMBER: "We should be glad to see you up there."] It is a vital necessity, in the interests of the successful prosecution of the war, that not only shall the soldier, the sailor and the airman be kept as cheerful as we can keep him—or, at any rate, be prevented from becoming miserable and depressed—but of equal importance that that should be done for the industrial worker as well. That is the reason why the Government recommend to the House, as they firmly do, that the Prayer should be rejected. The Regulation arises from the war, it is for the purposes of the war, and will automatically come to an end when the war is over.

Mr. Magnay: That is not in the Regulation at all; and the theatrical people say that it may continue for years.

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend is taking advice on law from the theatrical profession, I will tell him that they never were good at law. It does not depend on the Regulation. The power under which the Regulation itself is made comes to an end at the end of the war, and, therefore, the Regulation must automatically come to an end, too. Let the House not bother itself about what is to happen at the end of the war. This is a war-time Measure. If at the end of the war any Government wish to continue Sunday theatres, they will not be able to do it under this Regulation. They will have to bring in a Bill and go through all the stages of Parliamentary legislation. The point is amply safeguarded. Nor does this Regulation say to the whole country that theatres must be allowed to open on Sundays. The local authority at Llanelly will have


an absolute right to say that they will not have the theatres open.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Does this not introduce a disturbing element into all those local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: I know something about that, from the local authority of which I am still a member. Such questions were always awkward for that local authority, especially in days of peace; but that authority is running peacefully now. Can anybody say that this discussion in the House to-day will have a bad effect on us? I do not think so. I think it has all gone off very nicely. Tempers have been good. We have had a day out of the ordinary rut. We shall probably be all the better for having had a perfectly free and independent discussion. I do not think the local authorities will be hurt. Some of the leading councillors will have a bit of anxiety; but it will be a change for them, a new form of anxiety, and I not think it will do them any harm. My point is that the local authority will decide. If the competent military authority say that they want the theatres open, the local authority can say, "We do not"; and they will not be open. In a limited number of cases the local authorities have rejected the application of the competent military authority. They can do the same with the application of the competent industrial authority.
The present position as regards Sunday opening is that it is extensively allowed. The Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, legalised Sunday opening in areas where it had already taken place; the population of such areas was 10,100,000 persons. The number of Orders made under the Act was 90, affecting an additional 4,034,000 persons. Then came the first Defence Regulation. The number of Orders made under that Regulation was 174, including some very quiet and respectable places, which thought it the right thing to do. The number of Orders made is 174, affecting a population of 7,600,000. So, the population in the areas where Sunday opening takes place is already 21,700,000. Who can say, or who is going to say that the morale of the people in this war has been worsened in consequence of this widespread Sunday opening? I think that on the whole it has been the better. I do not like my hon. Friend the

Member for Gateshead saying that London is the wickedest city on earth.

Mr. Magnay: I never said that: I said that it was a cosmopolitan city and that there was no comparison between it and any city in the provinces. There is no comparison at all because there is no parity; it is a contrast.

Mr. Morrison: I do not dispute that at all, but I gathered from his tone of voice and his references to me as the boss of London and the conqueror of Waterloo Bridge—I do not complain about it—that he had some feeling on the point. But the cinemas in London have been opened for many years on a Sunday. It was, I do not say the pioneer of this practice, but one of the pioneers, and cinemas have been opened for years, and there have been Sunday games in the parks for years. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead disagree with me when I say that, despite this long period of Sunday opening and Sunday games, the morale, stamina and grit of the people of this capital city have not been below that of other cities? I think the argument that Sunday entertainments lead to deterioration and lack of morale is wrong; and what is true of London in this respect is true of other parts of the country. And the morale is equally fine where Sunday opening has not taken place.
I sum up, therefore, by saying that the Government, having given this question the most careful consideration, and having the warmest respect and deepest regard for the conscientious principles and religious convictions of all hon. Members and their constituents—none of us would do anything light-heartedly to upset these convictions—nevertheless, feel—and we have a fair amount of religious opinion on our side as well as against us—that on balance this is a desirable thing in the interest of the prosecution of the war. The Regulation ends with the war. Local option is preserved. I think it would have been wrong to exclude Wales, because it would have denied to local authorities in Wales the right to decide for themselves in the same way as English authorities. If the local authorities of Wales and the Welsh people do not want Sunday opening, they will not have it, but it would be wrong not to give them the right to decide. The position in Scotland is that apparently the Sunday


Observance Acts are not held to apply, a position which was a surprise, I am sure, to the bulk of Members of this House, as it was to me. The legal position in Scotland is substantially what it is in England and Wales under the Defence Regulations. Wales need not in any way be jealous of Scotland. I can put it this way: Scotland is excluded from the Regulation because she is already able to deal with the matter by another method.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When other kinds of Sunday legislation have come before this House consideration has always been granted to Wales. This is the first piece of Sunday legislation in which the special position of Wales is not recognised.

Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate that point, and I do not disguise the fact that the bulk of Welsh opinion on this matter is not the same as mine.

Viscountess Astor: Or the West Country.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree. If it is so, the counties of Cornwall and Devon will have the right to keep cinemas and theatres closed. They have this free right under this Defence Regulation, and is it not equally proper that the rights of local self-government and local decision of the authorities in Wales should be equal to those of local authorities in Cornwall and Devon? I do not want Wales to be in an inferior position, as regards local self-government, to England, but I entirely appreciate the other point of view. I would advise the theatre and music hall people, in deciding what kind of plays and shows they should put on on Sundays, to exercise discrimination and restraint. They must take account of the opinion which exists. I think they ought to do so, and that it would be wise for them to do so. I would remind them also that local authorities can, if they wish, attach conditions to the granting of licences. If they want to exclude the cruder kinds of entertainment, they can do as a condition of granting a licence. There is not a great deal they cannot do as a condition of granting a licence.

Mr. Riley: Does that mean that they can insist on plays being submitted to them for their approval?

Mr. Morrison: They cannot usurp the functions of the Censor, but they can give guidance to managements as to the kind of think they should do. They could tell them, "Do not go too far by making it vulgar, cheap or crude. If you do, you will be in trouble sooner or later." This kind of thing can be done. I have done it. Managements are not fools, and if local authorities give them the tip, they are usually wise enough to take it.

Viscountess Astor: The military authorities are allowing shows which have been banned in London—perfectly filthy shows.

Mr. Morrison: If that is in a theatre licensed by a local authority, then the local authority can deal with it. If it is a military establishment under the auspices of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, then I will say nothing whatever about it. But the Noble Lady may leave it to him. There is, I gather, some feeling in certain parts of the House that this facility ought not to be exercised before a reasonable hour on Sunday—that the morning, at any rate, ought to be left clear. I think that is reasonable, and that there should be an hour in the middle of the day before which opening cannot take place. I do not think many local authorities will take any other view, but if the House agrees, I propose to advise the licensing authorities and the local authorities that they should not in any case permit Sunday opening before 1.30 p.m. I feel sure that will be effective and operative. However, if there should be any serious difficulty about it, we can consider whether the Defence Regulation can be amended, although I cannot be sure that is legally practicable. I propose to give that advice to the local authorities, and I feel sure they will observe it.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman have regard to only one religious community?

Mr. Morrison: I was having regard to religious opinion generally as far as I could. I was not aware that only one Church had morning services. I thought all of them had. Therefore, I think my proposal would be of some advantage to all Churches, but if any Churches would prefer that there should be no restriction of that kind, and that theatres and music


halls should be permitted to open as early as they like, I should have to think again. I have not gathered that that is their point of view. In conclusion, I wish to thank hon. Members for the spirit in which the Debate has been conducted. There has been hard hitting, but it has been a good Debate. The Government feel it is right that this Regulation should be approved. We ask the House to reject the Prayer, and we honestly believe that in so doing it will be doing the right thing in the circumstances in which we are

Division No. 11.]
AYES.



Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Peat, C. U.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pete s, Dr. S. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Radford, E. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)
Rankin, Sir R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Hannah, I. C.
Richards, R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Ritson, J.


Beechman, N. A.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Blair, Sir R.
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Col. C. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hunter, T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Browne, Captain A. C. (Belfast W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Jackson, W. F.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Burton, Col. H. W
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar).


Butcher, H. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
John, W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Cary, R. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Sir W.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Cove, W. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, Flight-Lt. Malcolm S.
Summers, G. S.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sykes, Sir F. H


De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Doland, G. F.
McKinlay, A. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Drewe, C.
MacLaren, A.
Train, Sir J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maitland, Sir A.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Mander, G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E.
Martin, J. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mathers, G.
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Medlicott, Major Frank
Weston, W. Garfield


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Fildes, Sir H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Fraser, Capt. Sir Ian
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Major D. P. M.
Mort, D. L.
Woolley, W. E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) 
Muff, G. 
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Gibbins, J.
Nall, Sir J.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granville, E. L.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Magnay and Sir Francis Fremantle.




NOES.


Adams, D. Consett)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Broad, F. A


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Benson, G.
Brooke, H.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Bevan, A.
Buchanan, G.


Assheton, R.
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Bullock Capt. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T


Baxter, A. Beverley
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

placed. I believe that the Regulation will help to keep people cheerful and happy, a factor which will materially help in the prosecution of the war. In rejecting the prayer, the House may be assured that at the end of the war the position will be entirely open and free. It will then be for the House to take such course of action as it thinks fit. I ask that the prayer be rejected.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 136.

Channon, H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Ep'ing)
Leach, W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Levy, T.
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)


Cocks, F. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Selley, H. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lipson, D. L.
Silkin, L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G's.)
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Silverman, S. S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lyttelton, Capt. Rt. Hon. O.
Simmonds, D. E.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly)


Culverwell, C. T.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McGovern, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dobbie, W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thurtle, E.


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Touche, G. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, Major J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gallacher, W.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. 
Oliver, G. H. 
Webbe, Sir W. Harold 


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Paling W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. P.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Harvey, T. E.
Peake, O.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Price, M. P.
Wilmot, John


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Profumo, J. D.
Windsor, W.


Hill, Dr. A. V (Cambridge U.)
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (H'ckn'y, N.)
Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)


Jagger, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C.


Johnstone, H. (Middesbrough, W.) 
Rickards, G. W. 



Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— 


Jewitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Colonel Sandeman Allen and


King-Hall, Commander, W. S. R.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Mr. Denville.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 28th February 1941, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts 1939 and 1940, amending Regulation 42B of, and adding Regulation 42BA to, the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th March, 1941, be annulled.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO I934.

Resolved,
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Cardigan and

Fishguard Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on 11th March and published, be approved subject to the following modifications:—
Clause 3, page 2, lines 46 and 47, leave out 'thirty-first day of March, 1941,' and insert 'date of this Order.'

Clause 4, page 3, lines 22 to 25, leave out paragraph (b),and insert,—

(b) In Clause 2 the words 'thirtieth day after the ' shall be omitted."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]